Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11


5130 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1071

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1599632 27-Jul-2016 16:57
One person supports this post
Send private message

Technofreak:

 

tdgeek:

Your in the 2.5%

 

I'm not sure what you're saying here however I'm pretty sure there's vastly more than 2.5% of the population who would agree with the sentiments in the post of mine that you quoted.

 

I don't care what percentage I belong in. The debate on climate change isn't a popularity contest. Unlike some people I don't believe something just because it's popular.

 

The poles reflect a great deal of solar radiation away, that area is declining, water warms, exacerbating heating. The Great Water Tunnel will slow, less nutrients for marine life, causing more methane in the water, less oxygen as more methane and warner water supports less O. Its a vicious cycle caused artificially.

 

I'm not sure about your claim regarding the poles reflecting a great deal of solar radiation. It's a bit hard to explain the physics in a few sentences. Basically the because of the position of the sun relative to the poles, comparatively little solar radiation gets to the poles to start with. That's why the equatorial regions are so much warmer than the polar areas.

 

Can you explain why there wasn't an ecological disaster like is predicted in your quote when the earth was much warmer than it is now?

 

 

 

Linuxlover  

You must not have been paying attention for several decades now.

 

I've been paying attention. I've also witnessed many predictions of disaster, which never came to pass.

 

Do you remember the claim from the 1970's that global cooling was going to cause another ice age by 2000, or the prediction that by 2000 there would be 7 billion people on the earth and this number of people was unsustainable? Well there was no ice age in 2000 and we exceeded 7 billion in 2012 and we're all still here doing OK.

 

What about the 1970's prediction of wide spread famine in India, China, Pakistan, Africa and South America by 2000. Instead of widespread famine some of these countries are exporters of food.

 

There's a whole host more, which have proven to be wrong.

 

No doubt you've heard the long held claims about the negative impact of cholesterol on you health, now scientists are discovering cholesterol is actually good for you.  The reason it was though cholesterol was bad was it was always found in larger quantities in people with heart problems ergo it must be the cause of the problem. Now it's been discovered it is the body's way of fighting the problems associated with heart issues. The best analogy I've heard is always seeing a lot of fireman at a fire therefore they must be the cause.

 

So after years and years of medical science telling us to keep cholesterol down now we're seeing the message cholesterol can be good for us.

 

Yes, I've been paying attention, but I've also learned not to panic and believe every bit of "scientific fact". 

 

 

I do recall they thought there might be an ice age.....and to be fair they knew a lot less then than they (scientists) do now. People once thought the Earth was flat......heh...people, eh. Talking crap all the time until one day they aren't. 

 

as for 7 billion peoplem, it isn't sustainable. But they don't all drop dead in a minute, do they.....It takes time to poison the air, water and soil and slowly degrade the systems that support life. Along the way civil strife and war obscures the real causes. We're busy doing that right now in many parts of the world.....and climate change will help enormously, too.....driven in part by too many people (back we go to 7 billion not being sustainable). 

 

Yes...people have been putting up theories...and they are tested and found to be valid or not valid. Climate change is one of the valid ones. The consequences? Well...less clear....but seal levels are rising and the weather is becoming more extreme, so we can extrapolate form that if we are prudent.....or allow our continuation bias to persist until disaster comes as a "surprise" (despite decades of warning, it's always a surprise to the people who ignored the warnings). 

 

My paying attention comment was about the record of atmospheric gases for the past 600,000 years. You asked how we could know this.....and the way we know it isn't new and has been out there for some time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 





____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet


12763 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2290

Trusted

  Reply # 1599633 27-Jul-2016 17:06
One person supports this post
Send private message

Here is an off the cuff summary

 

Sea levels rise, pushing 40% of the global population inland over time. Onto arable land.

 

Food growth changes as areas get warmer, and arable land reduces.

 

Seas warm, slowing down the currents and reducing the oxygen content, fish die, adding methane to a growing sea problem.

 

Equatorial region is uninhabitable, but the Greenlands of this world are now temperate and sub tropical

 

More weather due to more moisture and that causes havoc to the growing dust bowls. Soil blowing away, and washed away.

 

And all this isn't when temps rise 10C, its like 4C

 

 




5130 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1071

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1599634 27-Jul-2016 17:08
One person supports this post
Send private message

Technofreak:

 

tdgeek:

Your in the 2.5%

 

I'm not sure what you're saying here however I'm pretty sure there's vastly more than 2.5% of the population who would agree with the sentiments in the post of mine that you quoted.

 

I don't care what percentage I belong in. The debate on climate change isn't a popularity contest. Unlike some people I don't believe something just because it's popular.

 

The poles reflect a great deal of solar radiation away, that area is declining, water warms, exacerbating heating. The Great Water Tunnel will slow, less nutrients for marine life, causing more methane in the water, less oxygen as more methane and warner water supports less O. Its a vicious cycle caused artificially.

 

I'm not sure about your claim regarding the poles reflecting a great deal of solar radiation. It's a bit hard to explain the physics in a few sentences. Basically the because of the position of the sun relative to the poles, comparatively little solar radiation gets to the poles to start with. That's why the equatorial regions are so much warmer than the polar areas.

 

Can you explain why there wasn't an ecological disaster like is predicted in your quote when the earth was much warmer than it is now?

 

 

 

 

 

 

There have been numerous climate-driven ecological disasters in the past. There was the estimated 55 millions years the Earth spend as a snowball.....theorised to explain glacial mineral deposits at the equator....and the earth was mostly frozen almost right the equator all year round. It took an enormous amount of time for life to reassert some sort of warming influence and begin to reverse that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

 

There was the Chixilub asteroid of 65 millions years ago.....which more or less ended the dinosaurs (except for all the ones it didn't end - like birds and lizards). 7 billion people getting busy every day can have an impact much like that over time...and there of no reasonable basis for assuming they don't. It's just a question of how much time. 

 

Warnings now are about being at the beginning of that process. A prudent approach suggests we don't wait until it's too late to be satisfied it's true.....but there are people who don't believe a plane will crash until it crashes.  

 

 

 

 





____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet


12763 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2290

Trusted

  Reply # 1599635 27-Jul-2016 17:09
Send private message

I feel it well worth a watch of some docos. They do go over the past history, they arent just about the last 150 years. 


12763 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2290

Trusted

  Reply # 1599637 27-Jul-2016 17:18
Send private message

Interesting article, and not meant to be my conspiracy theory

 

http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm

 

 

 

 


467 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 100


  Reply # 1599936 28-Jul-2016 01:12
One person supports this post
Send private message

Human psychology is such that having one unit less utility than an individual is accustomed to is much much more painful than having one more unit of utility is pleasurable.

 

Coming from Academia I think that differing opinions and theories should be allowed and existing consensus should be challenged.  I'm not convinced the "2.5%" have been allowed to exist in academia, and I think that leads to more of them outside of it.  "The science is settled" is a huge mistake in my mind.  I also think evangelical-like support of climate change alienates more than it compels. And if preventing climate change is the goal, we need to be cognitive of the effect of the message.

 

That said, I try and be as environmentally aware and conscious as I can.  I reduced one organization's energy consumption by 30%.  I'm not perfect at it and I don't judge others as inferior if it looks like they're not perfect either.  I do what I can to inform people within my network about how they can be more efficient/consume less, but not with the use of judgement or guilt.


931 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 189


  Reply # 1599937 28-Jul-2016 01:22
One person supports this post
Send private message

Sadly by the time governments and people in general realise they need to do something it will be too late, if this doesn't kill off the human race nuclear war / AI intelligence will.


12763 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2290

Trusted

  Reply # 1599974 28-Jul-2016 07:38
Send private message

k1wi:

 

Human psychology is such that having one unit less utility than an individual is accustomed to is much much more painful than having one more unit of utility is pleasurable.

 

Coming from Academia I think that differing opinions and theories should be allowed and existing consensus should be challenged.  I'm not convinced the "2.5%" have been allowed to exist in academia, and I think that leads to more of them outside of it.  "The science is settled" is a huge mistake in my mind.  I also think evangelical-like support of climate change alienates more than it compels. And if preventing climate change is the goal, we need to be cognitive of the effect of the message.

 

That said, I try and be as environmentally aware and conscious as I can.  I reduced one organization's energy consumption by 30%.  I'm not perfect at it and I don't judge others as inferior if it looks like they're not perfect either.  I do what I can to inform people within my network about how they can be more efficient/consume less, but not with the use of judgement or guilt.

 

 

This issue has evolved into a form of sensationalism. A drama. Conspiracy. Fact is its just plain since that has looked at climate changes for millennia, and deduced that we are adding artificial efforts ourselves. Its not like we are adding to the heat of the planet, we are insulating it. There also seems to be a drama over CO2. Its not just CO2. Other gases, removing vegetation that absorbs CO2 and adds O2. Overheat vegetation and they emit CO2. Methane is dangerous, but its everywhere. Wherever there is tundra there is locked in methane. 


1150 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 238

Subscriber

  Reply # 1615296 21-Aug-2016 21:02
One person supports this post
Send private message

BurningBeard:

 

nunz: Look - One Volcano eruption throws more c02 in a few days than 5 years of human emissions. 

 

 

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

 

 

Please note that articles also supports volcanoes causing faster ice melt contributing to global warning.

 

SO2 has differing effects than CO2, ash causes issues, blah blah blah - none of the scientists can get their stuff together other than to say el nino nina changes may or may not be caused by volcanos, more under seas volcanic activity etc etc etc.

 

It also notes that increased volcanic activity did contribute to part of antarcticas melt recently as quoted by me.

 

We would still have to raise the AVERAGE temperature by quite a number of degrees to melt the S. Pole which has an average below zero temperature of many degres while the average temp raise was 0.2c or simlar. 

 

Why aren't we hearing about the ozone hole killing us and killing the ice any more? No longer sexy.

 

 





nunz

265 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 23


  Reply # 1615304 21-Aug-2016 21:12
Send private message

nunz:

BurningBeard:


nunz: Look - One Volcano eruption throws more c02 in a few days than 5 years of human emissions. 


 


https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm



Please note that articles also supports volcanoes causing faster ice melt contributing to global warning.


SO2 has differing effects than CO2, ash causes issues, blah blah blah - none of the scientists can get their stuff together other than to say el nino nina changes may or may not be caused by volcanos, more under seas volcanic activity etc etc etc.


It also notes that increased volcanic activity did contribute to part of antarcticas melt recently as quoted by me.


We would still have to raise the AVERAGE temperature by quite a number of degrees to melt the S. Pole which has an average below zero temperature of many degres while the average temp raise was 0.2c or simlar. 


Why aren't we hearing about the ozone hole killing us and killing the ice any more? No longer sexy.


 



Temperature rise in the polar regions is greater than the global average. Exposed water and surface melt absorb a lot more energy as well.

The ozone hole is decreasing because legislation was used to reduce the use of causal agents.

12763 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2290

Trusted

  Reply # 1615306 21-Aug-2016 21:16
Send private message

Check out Chasing Ice. Doco by James Balog


12763 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2290

Trusted

  Reply # 1615317 21-Aug-2016 21:22
Send private message

rhy7s:
nunz:

 

BurningBeard:

 

 

 

nunz: Look - One Volcano eruption throws more c02 in a few days than 5 years of human emissions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please note that articles also supports volcanoes causing faster ice melt contributing to global warning.

 

 

 

SO2 has differing effects than CO2, ash causes issues, blah blah blah - none of the scientists can get their stuff together other than to say el nino nina changes may or may not be caused by volcanos, more under seas volcanic activity etc etc etc.

 

 

 

It also notes that increased volcanic activity did contribute to part of antarcticas melt recently as quoted by me.

 

 

 

We would still have to raise the AVERAGE temperature by quite a number of degrees to melt the S. Pole which has an average below zero temperature of many degres while the average temp raise was 0.2c or simlar. 

 

 

 

Why aren't we hearing about the ozone hole killing us and killing the ice any more? No longer sexy.

 

 

 

 

 



Temperature rise in the polar regions is greater than the global average. Exposed water and surface melt absorb a lot more energy as well.

The ozone hole is decreasing because legislation was used to reduce the use of causal agents.

 

You don't look at it by X amount of degrees to melt the South Pole. Every increase in global average temp reduces the surface area of the poles, which reduces the reflection of solar rays, allowing more solar rays to warm the seas.Which then melt more ice, and so on. Its a cycle that adds to its own cycle. The tipping point is reached when this cycles manages itself irregardless of what humans do. Part of the reason for the Earths temperature are the poles, which allow less than 100% of the suns rays to warm the Earth. 

 

Take it a step further. Warmer seas means more weather, we see that now. Warmer seas cannot support as much life due to supporting less oxygen, so some marine life dies, which adds toxins to the water. Warmer water reduces the flow speed of the great water current, also reducing oxygenation.


gzt

10020 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1516


  Reply # 1615372 21-Aug-2016 22:02
Send private message

nunz: Why aren't we hearing about the ozone hole killing us and killing the ice any more? No longer sexy.

Good news on the ozone hole!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/antarctic-ozone-hole-healing-fingerprints

No u.v readings are mentioned so maybe it is not that great yet, but on the face of it, it appears we are making good progress there.

MIT says we are on track to return to pre-anthroypomorhic levels around 2050.

See. It can be done.

622 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 12


  Reply # 1615389 21-Aug-2016 23:11
Send private message

of course you watch this 2008 docu on who killed the electric car

 

 

 

its good to see oil coys bought super battery tech and then suppressed it lol

 

 

 

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v12581888HJGJyt6s

 

 

 

I heard thouse the trees in canada / yukon are growing twice as fast

 

as they loving the C02

 

 

 

maybe the problem its not CO2 but th cutting down of all the old forrests

 

espc in places like south america


Mad Scientist
18695 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2379

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1615392 21-Aug-2016 23:20
Send private message

maybe the CO2 is too many people and too many cows


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

The Warehouse leaps into the AI future with Google
Posted 15-Aug-2018 17:56


Targus set sights on enterprise and consumer growth in New Zealand
Posted 13-Aug-2018 13:47


Huawei to distribute nova 3i in New Zealand
Posted 9-Aug-2018 16:23


Home robot Vector to be available in New Zealand stores
Posted 9-Aug-2018 14:47


Panasonic announces new 2018 OLED TV line up
Posted 7-Aug-2018 16:38


Kordia completes first live 4K TV broadcast
Posted 1-Aug-2018 13:00


Schools get safer and smarter internet with Managed Network Upgrade
Posted 30-Jul-2018 20:01


DNC wants a safer .nz in the coming year
Posted 26-Jul-2018 16:08


Auldhouse becomes an AWS Authorised Training Delivery Partner in New Zealand
Posted 26-Jul-2018 15:55


Rakuten Kobo launches Kobo Clara HD entry level reader
Posted 26-Jul-2018 15:44


Kiwi team reaches semi-finals at the Microsoft Imagine Cup
Posted 26-Jul-2018 15:38


KidsCan App to Help Kiwi Children in Need
Posted 26-Jul-2018 15:32


FUJIFILM announces new high-performance lenses
Posted 24-Jul-2018 14:57


New FUJIFILM XF10 introduces square mode for Instagram sharing
Posted 24-Jul-2018 14:44


OPPO brings advanced technology to the smartphone market with new device
Posted 24-Jul-2018 09:20



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.