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
Mad Scientist
19018 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2470

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1926949 30-Dec-2017 13:28
Send private message

Mistenfuru:

 

Geektastic: The climate will do whatever it does. Humans will adapt or die.

The end.

 

 

 

Humans can adapt by making less of an impact on the Climate. 

 

When 99% of scientific studies support an idea (and have been studied thousands of times) then that is deemed scientific consensus.

 

When 1% find alternate statistics, they are subsequently peer reviewed and Always found to be lacking.

 

 

 

The scientific truth is that man is affecting the climate faster than what the climate would change naturally. You might say this is debatable, and it has been debated, thousands of times as a matter of fact, and the scientific consensus still remains the same: Humans are affecting the climate at a rate that is unsustainable to life as we know it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently if you stop farming animals for food and stop manufacturing stuff that will do the most.

 

So stop eating meat and any imported food and stop buying stuff and don't fly.




652 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157


  Reply # 1926953 30-Dec-2017 13:38
2 people support this post
Send private message

Geektastic: The climate will do whatever it does. Humans will adapt or die.

The end.

 

I agree 100% with you there. 




652 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157


Reply # 1926956 30-Dec-2017 13:43
Send private message

Batman:

 

nobody knows for 100% sure. heck nobody can even get 99% on predicting the weather 24hrs ahead.

 



But 'man made' climate change believers tell us we cant use weather events as any indication of climate change, then say x, y, z weather events are indications of climate change...




652 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157


  Reply # 1926987 30-Dec-2017 14:05
Send private message

driller2000:

 

Didn't have to look far to find questions re this study - and even moreso the reporting/exaggeration therein:

 

http://theconversation.com/the-mini-ice-age-hoopla-is-a-giant-failure-of-science-communication-45037

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/?utm_term=.dcf4872faf9e

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/16/no-the-sun-isnt-going-to-save-us-from-global-warming

 

https://theconversation.com/no-we-arent-heading-into-a-mini-ice-age-44677

 

Quote:

 

Should we be worried?

 

If this link between variations in solar activity and changes in the Earth’s climate seems obvious, that’s because it is. When the amount of energy emitted by the sun changes, it has an affect on our climate.

 

But the real issue is just how strong this influence is compared to other factors. The total solar irradiance, a measure of the power produced by the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation, varies by only about 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle. Climate scientists have understood this effect for some time and it is already built into the computer models that are used to try and forecast our climate.

 



Like the studies referred to in the article? 

 

As for your references about the article, thanks for doing that 'research', but IMHO the links you have provided have too much bias to be counted as anything more than some pro climate change media trying to dismiss another media press release they disagree with. 

 

"The lessons to be learned from this is scientists must communicate their science concisely and accurately, especially if we are to avoid the media frenzy highlighted by the ABC’s Media Watch. If scientists, science organisations and media aren’t careful, they can inadvertently end up promoting dangerous misinformation."
https://theconversation.com/the-mini-ice-age-hoopla-is-a-giant-failure-of-science-communication-45037


Mad Scientist
19018 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2470

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1926988 30-Dec-2017 14:10
Send private message

MaxLV:

 

Batman:

 

nobody knows for 100% sure. heck nobody can even get 99% on predicting the weather 24hrs ahead.

 



But 'man made' climate change believers tell us we cant use weather events as any indication of climate change, then say x, y, z weather events are indications of climate change...

 

 

Exactly. 

 

And then you have to buy electric cars. But how much CO2 is produced buying electric cars? Oh and it turns out they drink a lot of coffee on the go. Did they know the recyclable cups are not recyclable? Oh and they buy all these stuff all the time - did they know how much packaging comes in the stuff they buy? And the shipping all the way from China is by Boeing 747 freight? I'm more worried about the slave conditions of the people who mine the ingredients and the factory workers who build them. Then some of them have holidays every other week ...


113 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 64


  Reply # 1926992 30-Dec-2017 14:26
Send private message

Batman:

 

MaxLV:

 

Batman:

 

nobody knows for 100% sure. heck nobody can even get 99% on predicting the weather 24hrs ahead.

 



But 'man made' climate change believers tell us we cant use weather events as any indication of climate change, then say x, y, z weather events are indications of climate change...

 

 

Exactly. 

 

And then you have to buy electric cars. But how much CO2 is produced buying electric cars? Oh and it turns out they drink a lot of coffee on the go. Did they know the recyclable cups are not recyclable? Oh and they buy all these stuff all the time - did they know how much packaging comes in the stuff they buy? And the shipping all the way from China is by Boeing 747 freight? I'm more worried about the slave conditions of the people who mine the ingredients and the factory workers who build them. Then some of them have holidays every other week ...

 

 

 

 

So you're saying it's too difficult and why should we even try? How dare we try leave this planet in a better condition than when we started?.....

 

Electric Cars throughout their life (especially in NZ) produce FAR less CO2 than an ICE equivalent, including the cost of production and transportation.

 

Most Coffee shops in NZ use recycled cardboard in their cups (go have a look through a few, and if they don't, then ask them to)

 

 

 

I understand you think "Climate Change Believers" (is that what we're called? I thought it was just intelligence to accept current scientific understandings..) are hypocrits for saying we should improve our way of life, but we're not. We're merely trying to make a change to a bad situation....


Mad Scientist
19018 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2470

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1927006 30-Dec-2017 14:39
Send private message

No I'm not saying don't try or that it's not true.

Just people who fixate on one thing but their lifestyle doesn't reflect it.

What still baffles me is you can trade carbon offset, pay for the problem to go away?

113 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 64


  Reply # 1927008 30-Dec-2017 14:44
Send private message

Batman: No I'm not saying don't try or that it's not true.

Just people who fixate on one thing but their lifestyle doesn't reflect it.

What still baffles me is you can trade carbon offset, pay for the problem to go away?

 

 

 

Agreed there, I'm definitely not perfect in my lifestyle but I am making a conscious effort to reduce my emissions and energy use.

 

And I totally agree Carbon offset payments is a completely idiotic idea, giving rich companies a way of avoiding the problem...

 

 


Mad Scientist
19018 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2470

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1927016 30-Dec-2017 15:00
Send private message

No they don't pay, you pay for it.

2459 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1205

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1927024 30-Dec-2017 15:22
3 people support this post
Send private message

MaxLV:

 

frankv:

 

Whether we're going to freeze or cook is almost irrelevant. Either way is a bad thing.

 

If there are computer models which give widely disparate results, we need to spend some effort on finding out which (if any) is most accurate. Part of that is figuring out what's causing it... I doubt that you can have a good predictive model without knowing cause-effect relationships.

 

Once we've figured out what is going to happen, then look at what effect it will have, how bad it will be, and finally how best to mitigate that.

 

 

You mean so it (the planets climate) will 'behave' the way we 'want it to?'.

This claim, made most often by not only media reporting, but also by scientists (who should know better) is most often the cause of my skepticism.

 

 

You mean that you believe we can't alter the climate? There are plenty of examples of climate being changed on a local scale. With the increasing scale of our outputs to the air, why wouldn't there be an increasing scale to their effects?

 

Given the possibility of enormous harm being done, it's worthwhile to spend some money on whether that harm is likely, or even possible. And just how bad it could get. Without that sort of basic information, there's no way to make a rational decision about what we should do to avoid the potential catastrophe.

 

As for "the way we want it to"... the real problem is that we have optimized our occupation of the Earth to fit in with the *current* climate (cities located on coastlines, farming in temperate regions, defense against climatic events (blizzards, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc) in areas where they currently occur, etc). If the climate changes, things will be sub-optimal i.e. worse.

 

It may be that the cheapest mitigation is to do nothing now, and let some future generation pay for relocation and repair and new infrastructure. Maybe you might expect them to be better equipped with better technology to move cities, or build dykes, or whatever. But at some point we're going to have to live within our means in terms of what damage we do to the environment, and what work we do to repair it. Is there any reason why we shouldn't start on that path now?

 

 


13435 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1927072 30-Dec-2017 17:50
One person supports this post
Send private message

Geektastic: The climate will do whatever it does. Humans will adapt or die.

The end.

 

Nein

 

You are correct but when you factor in human interventions its another ball game


13435 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1927075 30-Dec-2017 17:56
One person supports this post
Send private message

MaxLV:

 

driller2000:

 

Didn't have to look far to find questions re this study - and even moreso the reporting/exaggeration therein:

 

http://theconversation.com/the-mini-ice-age-hoopla-is-a-giant-failure-of-science-communication-45037

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/?utm_term=.dcf4872faf9e

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/16/no-the-sun-isnt-going-to-save-us-from-global-warming

 

https://theconversation.com/no-we-arent-heading-into-a-mini-ice-age-44677

 

Quote:

 

Should we be worried?

 

If this link between variations in solar activity and changes in the Earth’s climate seems obvious, that’s because it is. When the amount of energy emitted by the sun changes, it has an affect on our climate.

 

But the real issue is just how strong this influence is compared to other factors. The total solar irradiance, a measure of the power produced by the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation, varies by only about 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle. Climate scientists have understood this effect for some time and it is already built into the computer models that are used to try and forecast our climate.

 



Like the studies referred to in the article? 

 

As for your references about the article, thanks for doing that 'research', but IMHO the links you have provided have too much bias to be counted as anything more than some pro climate change media trying to dismiss another media press release they disagree with. 

 

"The lessons to be learned from this is scientists must communicate their science concisely and accurately, especially if we are to avoid the media frenzy highlighted by the ABC’s Media Watch. If scientists, science organisations and media aren’t careful, they can inadvertently end up promoting dangerous misinformation."
https://theconversation.com/the-mini-ice-age-hoopla-is-a-giant-failure-of-science-communication-45037

 

 

You are biased. If I gave you undeniable evidence, you will nit accept that. I believe in climate change via humans. I have watched many docos on that topic and many docos denying it. The former are full of science, the latter are full of rhetoric. As in the ice age comments here, so climate change is a fake. But ice ages are not caused by us, they are caused by the suns output and Earth's axis changes. One example of false information to deny climate change.

 

The nearest (by far) planet to the Sun in Mercury. The hottest planet is our neighbour Venus. Why? Greenhouse gases insulating the planet.  


13435 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1927076 30-Dec-2017 17:59
Send private message

Batman: No I'm not saying don't try or that it's not true.

Just people who fixate on one thing but their lifestyle doesn't reflect it.

What still baffles me is you can trade carbon offset, pay for the problem to go away?

 

Paying a carbon offset doesnt make the problem go away, you are making that up. It should fund efforts to reduce greenhouse output, but with the US and China that wont happen. They are not interested, as it costs $. 


13435 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1927078 30-Dec-2017 18:03
Send private message

frankv:

 

MaxLV:

 

frankv:

 

Whether we're going to freeze or cook is almost irrelevant. Either way is a bad thing.

 

If there are computer models which give widely disparate results, we need to spend some effort on finding out which (if any) is most accurate. Part of that is figuring out what's causing it... I doubt that you can have a good predictive model without knowing cause-effect relationships.

 

Once we've figured out what is going to happen, then look at what effect it will have, how bad it will be, and finally how best to mitigate that.

 

 

You mean so it (the planets climate) will 'behave' the way we 'want it to?'.

This claim, made most often by not only media reporting, but also by scientists (who should know better) is most often the cause of my skepticism.

 

 

You mean that you believe we can't alter the climate? There are plenty of examples of climate being changed on a local scale. With the increasing scale of our outputs to the air, why wouldn't there be an increasing scale to their effects?

 

Given the possibility of enormous harm being done, it's worthwhile to spend some money on whether that harm is likely, or even possible. And just how bad it could get. Without that sort of basic information, there's no way to make a rational decision about what we should do to avoid the potential catastrophe.

 

As for "the way we want it to"... the real problem is that we have optimized our occupation of the Earth to fit in with the *current* climate (cities located on coastlines, farming in temperate regions, defense against climatic events (blizzards, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc) in areas where they currently occur, etc). If the climate changes, things will be sub-optimal i.e. worse.

 

It may be that the cheapest mitigation is to do nothing now, and let some future generation pay for relocation and repair and new infrastructure. Maybe you might expect them to be better equipped with better technology to move cities, or build dykes, or whatever. But at some point we're going to have to live within our means in terms of what damage we do to the environment, and what work we do to repair it. Is there any reason why we shouldn't start on that path now?

 

 

 

 

Money

 

It will fully resolve itself as nature will do. The planet will become smaller, and support a smaller population. Whether that massive population decline is famine, or war, or wealth, thats the unknown.


Mad Scientist
19018 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2470

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1927080 30-Dec-2017 18:07
Send private message

Fund efforts to reduce greenhouse output

 

You mean like when I pay a bloke to shave his head who is fund raising for the general public to put in some effort to lose some weight?


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
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:



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.