• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Climate Change: Ask Me Anything

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What is one piece of renewable energy tech you would like to see by the end of the decade? (2020 for those keeping score at home)

Climate Engineering Technology is on my list of things that should be looked at more seriously.

But in terms of renewable energy, I think carbon capture may be something we have to roll out on mass by 2020 if only to buy us more time and reduce the emissions with current technology. Thats something we can do now and aren't waiting around for anything. If we did that for every coal, oil or gas power station or any industrial process using coal or oil (such as making steel) with whatever current technologies we have it would make a difference.

Its not ideal but Its an emergency. so It shouldn't be an "either renewable or bust" situation as we should be prepared to do literally anything that can get us out of this mess. Its not very glamorous but it could reduce emissions in the short term and "normalise" the processes for eliminating carbon emissions rather than as a distant, abstract or hypothetical one.

The only reason not to do it is that its cheaper to go straight to renewables (which will be true of some areas but not others).

In the long term, basically we just need some serious money and investment to move this thing world-wide. Public or private- I don't care as long as it gets done.

Assuming you don't believe that climate change is caused by humans, why do people use that as an excuse to not try to do anything about it? Do we not still struggle when there's no hope that it'll save us from drowning or falling to our deaths? Or do these people deep down still not believe in warming at all? Or (sinister, my favorite) do they not care?

I think thats for me. :)

Errrrr....

I'm not sure. My best guess is that its part of a libertarian belief that collective action on any issue is coercive and a threat to personal liberty. Thats the least cynical explanation anyway.
 

ShivaFan

Satyameva Jayate
Premium Member
I do not believe in “man made global warming”, and yes of course I believe in “climate change” but I believe that climate change is normal, comes and goes in cycles as far as hot and cold, sun spots effect it and various patterns of planet rotations, and I think the climate is much more effected – even drastically – by volcanoes and asteroids than “man made”, though a few nuclear bombs in the right place might cause a true disaster in climate so in that case man could screw things up but I don’t think they have anything to do with what is going on right now.

But having said that, I am strongly against pollution which I do not see as the same “issue” as “global warming” – and YES, pollution is often man made. We have made tremendous progress in this regard, and I think we will continue to do so.

Just because I do not believe in “man made global warming” does NOT mean I am against non-oil sourced energy. The free market is already showing how such other technologies and energy sources and devices that use energy can drive products – people will buy a good product. For example, I like electric cars, not because I am concerned for “man made global warming” but because I like the product better than gas cars, and people will buy a good product, period. Electric cars are less noisy for one, and I like that, and we are soon going to see small electric engines on the inside of each wheel – four small engines total – and we will see very notable power and energy efficiency very soon. I will buy electric because it seems a better product to me than gas cars, and there is a growing number of consumers who are like me. I don’t care if operation of an electric vehicle will cost more than a gas car as the price at the pump for petrol drops – I will still buy electric for the same reasons I already said.

The free market is an answer – I love some of these solar devices as well. I use solar powered radios, watches, and probably soon we will have vehicles. Why not?

I will guarantee you, some new fangled vehicle is coming soon – I liked the compressed air vehicle even though others say “nawh… not efficient”. But there will be other vehicles coming as well. I PREFER non liquid based energy simply because it is less messy, liquid based such as gasoline is bulky to transport and store. It would be amazing if we could be a solar powered car, I would LOVE IT!

Take the example of my lawn trimmer. I had an electric one and it was a great mower. Then, as will anything, if broke down after a lot of use. I don't know why, perhaps I thought I was in a "mode to be manly" or something, I bought a gas powered trimmer. It became sort of a nightmare. For one, it was bigger and more difficult to handle. I required a lot of maintenance - the oil, the gas. I got sick pretty fast of going out and buying gas in a canister to fill the trimmer with - messy, would always manage to spill it as well, and I was nervous when storing it on very hot days. I later went and bought an electric trimmer again even though the gas powered one was still operative. Yes, people tell me I might cut the power cord and "electrocute myself". But I haven't so far. Now I see they have some small rechargeable ones that do not even need a cord when operating. So in this case I went electric because I LIKE IT, not because of "global warming".
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
One does not "believe" in the global warming pattern we've seen over the last several decades, as either they accept the reality of it or they reject that reality. Plus, it's been quite well established that human actions have contributed to most of this increase, so that also is not a matter of "belief".
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
where's the science?

You can be more specific if you want but Here's where wikipedia left it... :)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
You can be more specific if you want but Here's where wikipedia left it... :)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

One fundamental principle of science, is accurate observation and measurement. This ain't it

Where are we getting land and ocean, temps for the entire globe in 1880?! accurate to within a fraction of a degree?! that's just silly
the first expedition didn't even reach the south pole till 1902 !

The only thing close to accurate temps are the satellite data, dating back to 1979, and - without the heat islands recorded in this surface chart, tell a different story- the scientific one.

But this doesn't even say anything about causal correlation. You could use a chart to show that warm weather is caused by eating ice cream.

We know that temps drive CO2 levels with a lag of several hundred years, that's science. The opposite exists only in computer simulations
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
One fundamental principle of science, is accurate observation and measurement. This ain't it

Where are we getting land and ocean, temps for the entire globe in 1880?! accurate to within a fraction of a degree?! that's just silly
the first expedition didn't even reach the south pole till 1902 !

The only thing close to accurate temps are the satellite data, dating back to 1979, and - without the heat islands recorded in this surface chart, tell a different story- the scientific one.

But this doesn't even say anything about causal correlation. You could use a chart to show that warm weather is caused by eating ice cream.

We know that temps drive CO2 levels with a lag of several hundred years, that's science. The opposite exists only in computer simulations
This is absurd because it would involve all measuring devices during a given era all making the same exact mistake.

Secondly, some measurements come from ice cores taken that measure CO2 and methane levels, and we well know what their effect on the weather is.

Basically, the absurdity of the above post pretty much has it that these scientists are quite ignorant and/or dishonest people.
 

Akivah

Well-Known Member
How long do you think it will be until the hoax of man-made global warming is acknowledged?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
How long do you think it will be until the hoax of man-made global warming is acknowledged?
Never because all other possible causation has gradually been dismissed over the last several decades. So, I guess the better question is why is it that so many outside of the science community seem to have a problem accepting this reality, largely just here in the U.S.?
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
I'm not a scientist but if you have a question, I'm willing to look into it and find out the answer for you. I want to know more, so why not help others whilst I am at it? :D

Feel free to ask anything. Big or Small. :)
"If Global Warming is so real, why is it still cold outside in the Winter?"
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
And one of the greatest fears scientists have on this is that a melting of the permafrost would release large amounts of methane into the atmosphere, which is 20 time more absorbent per unit than CO2.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
And one of the greatest fears scientists have on this is that a melting of the permafrost would release large amounts of methane into the atmosphere, which is 20 time more absorbent per unit than CO2.
As it is, normal temperature increases in certain areas of the ocean (Like El Niños, for example) cause increases in storm strength and frequency that effect large areas of the planet... Observing this happening, and seeing an obvious correlation to manufactured CO2 output, should be reason enough to take pause, regardless of any other factors.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
As it is, normal temperature increases in certain areas of the ocean (Like El Niños, for example) cause increases in storm strength and frequency that effect large areas of the planet... Observing this happening, and seeing an obvious correlation to manufactured CO2 output, should be reason enough to take pause, regardless of any other factors.
According to the articles in Scientific American and elsewhere that I've read, that's all taken into consideration, so I fully agree with your assessment. The stats used are almost always world models, not local or regional unless specified otherwise.

Let me just add to the discussion here that agencies like NOAA, NASA, the NAS, the U.S. Department of Defense, the Smithsonian Institute, the National Geographic Society, etc., all agree that we are in an era of overall global warming and that human actions appear to be the main cause.
 

The Adept

Member
I'm not a scientist but if you have a question, I'm willing to look into it and find out the answer for you. I want to know more, so why not help others whilst I am at it? :D

Feel free to ask anything. Big or Small. :)

Is is a natural 100K cycle over the last 1 million years?
Thanks in advance ofcourse.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Is is a natural 100K cycle over the last 1 million years?
Thanks in advance ofcourse.

Hey Adept,

Whilst natural factors will play a role, the primary cause of current climate change is human activity as a source of greenhouse gas emissions.

The graph below is from the EPA's website and shows how models demonstrate that natural factors alone cannot account for observed changes in the climate.

Causes of Climate Change | Climate Change Science | US EPA

models-observed-human-natural.png


I hope that answers your question. :)
 

DennisTate

Active Member
I'm not a scientist but if you have a question, I'm willing to look into it and find out the answer for you. I want to know more, so why not help others whilst I am at it? :D

Feel free to ask anything. Big or Small. :)

What do you personally think of the alternative method of climate stabilization put forward by a New Mexico biologist and coach?


Carl Cantrell.

"So how is our problem of continental drying causing global warming? It all has to do with vegetation and sunlight. When sun light hits a plant, it causes a process which we call photosynthesis where the energy from the sun light creates oxygen for us to breathe, water for us to drink, and is stored as sugar for plants and animals to use. When the same sun light hits the soil, all of its energy turns into heat and is radiated back into the atmosphere.. ."

"Therefore, the less vegetation you have on the planet, the more sunlight is being turned into heat and the warmer the planet becomes...."

"Just take a look at any satellite picture of the earth showing heat and you will see that our deserts are the warmest spots on the planet by far. More heat is being generated by just one of the top four or five deserts than by all of our cities combined.... "

"The truth is that you can do more to decrease global warming by just reducing the average temperature for the Sahara Desert by one or two degrees than if we humans completely quit using fossil fuels and returned to the cave…."

"So, how would you start working to resolve this problem? Easy, cool the deserts and get some vegetation growing on them as soon as possible. But the method is much more complex than that. You have to use the prevailing trade winds in relation to the deserts to get the best results as quickly as possible and it will be extremely expensive…."

"Then we build desalination plants along the coast near these water sheds and pipe water to the tops or ridges of the water sheds…"

"We need to start working on this as soon as possible because, if the planet reaches a point to where it is warming faster than our technology can possibly stop or reverse this warming trend, then our planet is lost and all life will cease to exist on this planet within a relatively short period of time. We will need to start with the largest and hottest deserts because cooling them will have the greatest benefit in the least time (Global Warming II by biologist Carl Cantrell)."
 
Top