March for science 2017

Discussion in 'Science' started by SuperSymmetry, Apr 19, 2017.

  1. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    393
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Like the estimate that it would only cost $44 trillion to fail at stopping global warming, these things always end up costing more than the initial estimates. But a sunshade is still a bargain by comparison. And it's guaranteed to work.

    Why do you hate the sunshade so much? Is it because it would fix global warming without allowing alarmists to force people to change their lifestyles? That's my guess.

    That professor had to say what he said or he'd have been mobbed by AGW alarmists. That he may think renewable energy is the permanents solution, doesn't mean a Solar sunshade also isn't a workable solution.

    Again, why so much hate for the sunshade? You say it isn't a valid alternative yet you've failed to produce evidence that it wouldn't work, just that it would be a big project and an expensive one (though much less than wasting many more trillions on failed attempts to limit rising temps using other methods).
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
  2. Fallen

    Fallen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    4,905
    Likes Received:
    466
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Screenshot_2017-04-26-18-49-31-1.png


    Technology.Why its pointless to worry about Global Warming even IF its MAN made and why it will be irrelevant few hundred years from now
     
  3. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Source?

    Read your own sources:
    Two words:
    _Mass extinction_

    And I like how you ignore the part where we're warming at a rate that the Earth has never experienced. Does it not bother you at all that humanity may only have a few hundred more years left?

    Did you bother to read at all?
    So you're saying the Earth heating at an accelerating rate won't be responsible for the death of the human race?

    Nothing you've claimed has shown this to be the case. Even articles you site state that this is the case.

    You are in denial.

    Yeah, no. You're just strawmanning my claims. Like, if humans all suddenly disappeared, the planet would be even more ****ed than it already is.

    Yeah, except you're forgetting the part where the third worlds hits industrialization, which will have a far greater impact on the environment than when the west did.

    Just take a read through some of these, it will probably help
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman


    Not even the person leading the idea believes this.

    The article you cited states that this has more to do with the allocation of funds rather than the amount of money.

    From wikipedia (I assume you've barely bothered to read the article)
    [citation needed]

    Don't get me wrong, it's a fine idea. But it's impractical, and far from a long term solution (it's barely a solution to begin with).

    Source?

    When the person that's heading the project and has put the most thought power into says that it isn't a solution, that's a pretty good indicator that it isn't.

    It's a valid alternative, but lack luster and far from viable.

    "Oh yeah guys, we're only launching the world's largest construction project into space, no biggy."
     
  4. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    393
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    To which? Are you wasting my time by not checking these well-known AGW failures?

    Same reply: They've got to find the cloud in every silver lining or people might not believe AGW is the threat Greenies want them to fear.


    Two words:

    Space sunshield

    The super-volcano in Yellowstone could erupt at any time, causing millions of deaths and sending the planet into another ice age.

    Are you worried about it? Shouldn't we be spending trillions to deal with this threat? Certainly it's a more credible catastrophe than AGW.

    And at least we can deal with global warming (solar sunshield)

    Of course. What's your point?


    Nope, because we can solve the heating problem, should it ever actually become a problem.

    Coincidentally, nothing you've claimed about AGW has proved it to be a catastrophe. In fact, at this point the opposite is true.

    You're an alarmist.

    Humans are the best hope for Earth avoiding yet another extinction event or total destruction. We're getting better all the time.

    What, it's alright for the First World, we've got the great lifestyle, but those poor brown people can't be allowed to damage the environment?

    If you understood the meaning of straw man fallacy, I'd be more impressed.

    These guys have to toe the line when it comes to AGW. If they don't, they could lose their jobs and grants. Communism was more forgiving.


    It's practical and a long term solution. Seriously, once it's in place, why wouldn't it work for the long term?

    Ah, so you doubt that blocking the Sun's excess energy would end global warming?

    It isn't the long term solution he wants is all.

    It's brilliant, cost-effective, and practical. In other words, everything that AGW alarmists don't want.

    We'd be launching satellites to block the sun. Please point out where the technological hurdles arise.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2017
  5. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    You made the claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

    Conspiracy logic is hardly persuasive. Do you have any evidence that the authors are doing this out of some sort of fear of backlash?

    https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/yellowstone/yellowstone_sub_page_49.html

    Evidently not, because the article you linked does nothing to refute my claim. I don't detest that the Assad regime's behavior played a large factor in the state that Syria is in now, but if you would have read what I linked, you would see how his behavior has been a response to issues created by global warming.

    False:
    https://www.nrdc.org/stories/are-effects-global-warming-really-bad

    Yeah, no ****. Hence why humans completely falling off the planet would be a nightmare. Just imagine what would happen if our infrastructure was unmaintained? Power plants. Nuclear power plants.

    No, they are not.

    Baseless claim is baseless. Do have any evidence for claims like this, or can I just label you as a conspiracy theorist?

    For the amount of resources and man power it would take, not hardly.

    1. Maintanence. Space is harsh as ****.
    2. Rising CO2 emissions would mean that even the decreased amount of sunlight would still result in the Earth heating.

    I want a source for you claiming that the author is omitting information out of fear of backlash.

    Yeah, sure, it's pretty cool.

    Far from it. I've already shown you how that $5 trillion figure is a **** estimate.

    Yeah, no. You keep stating this, but you're not really backing up your claims.

    What you're essentially advocating for, is the largest construction project in the history of humanity that would only act as a temporary solution to a major problem.

    You say that it is the only solution that we would need, but I see no reason to take your word over the author who probably knows way more about this project than you or I. And even then, I'm skeptical of the author's claims? What are the views of the science community at large? What are the negative arguments other scientists and engineers have brought up? Is this even talked about that much? Why not?

    That's a gross oversimplification.

    We are building a massive superstructure, the likes of which the Earth has never seen, and launching it into space. You know, space? That place where it takes a **** ton of money, resources, and planning just to launch a single ****ing rocket? Imagine trying to lanch the Burj Khalifa into space? Now imagine that times over one million and you have this project.
     
  6. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    393
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Fine:
    Just last week:

    New York Times columnist bombarded with hateful tweets by the 'nasty left' over his climate change article
    Bret Stephens was slammed immediately after publishing his first opinion piece for the New York Times on Friday.

    He tweeted about the backlash saying he had received hate mail from Trump supporters in the past but nothing like what he was getting from the 'nasty left'
    • Stephens suggested incorrect polling data from the election could prove that science might potentially be wrong as well
    • The ex-Wall Street Journal writer argued it was absurd to support climate change without being aware of both sides of the argument
    Bret Stephens' article on climate change costs New York Times
    The New York Times' decision to publish a debut op-ed column by the newly-hired Bret Stephens, a notable denier of anthropogenic climate change, has sparked an uproar from the paper's subscribers, who are furious that the Times decided to publish a column that is contrary to much of the modern-day scientific consensus on the dangers of global warming.

    In his column, Stephens compared the "certitude" with which Hillary Clinton's advisers believed she would win the 2016 election to climate scientists' repeated warnings about climate change risks. As evidence, Stephens said that inaccurate polling data during the 2016 campaign proves that science can miss the mark in other fields as well.

    "There’s a lesson here. We live in a world in which data convey authority. But authority has a way of descending to certitude, and certitude begets hubris," Stephens wrote.

    Stephens' column evoked a swift and angry response from many of the paper's subscribers, who promptly canceled their subscriptions and bashed the Times' decision to hire Stephens as a writer. [/quote]​

    With Greenies, environmentalism is religion:

    Julian Simon, the economist who was legendarily skeptical about environmental doom, once posed a question at an environmental forum: “How many people here believe that the earth is increasingly polluted and that our natural resources are being exhausted?” Almost every hand shot up. He then said, “Is there any evidence that could dissuade you?” There was no response, so he asked again, “Is there any evidence I could give you—anything at all—that would lead you to reconsider these assumptions?” Again, no response. Simon concluded, “Well, excuse me. I’m not dressed for church.”​

    The last eruption was 640,000 years ago, and the length of time between eruptions has decreased. So we should be prepared for a blowup just to be safe amirite?

    Yellowstone has had at least three such eruptions: The three eruptions, 2.1 million years ago, 1.2 million years ago and 640,000 years ago, were about 6,000, 700 and 2,500 times larger than the May 18, 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens in Washington State.​

    Ah, nope. Drought in a region that's arid is not a shocker. The revolt against Assad stemmed from the Arab Spring, not global warming:

    Arab Spring refers to the democratic uprisings that arose independently and spread across the Arab world in 2011. The movement originated in Tunisia in December 2010 and quickly took hold in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan.​

    Here's a quote from your source, that just highlights how dishonest AGW promoters are:

    Science tells us that increases in carbon pollution have contributed to the destructive potential of Atlantic hurricanes and tropical storms in recent decades. Hurricane rainfall and wind speeds are projected to increase as the future becomes warmer.
    And yet, I've already proved that we're in a hurricane drought. So they're using weasel wording to avoid mentioning that we're experiencing far fewer hurricanes because of global warming.

    Snark or what?

    Garbled in translation? What are you trying to say?

    Ah, that sweet sensation that comes from opening somebody's eyes:
    Nonsense squared. It would solve global warming, provide a means for supplying power in space, and be a huge jobs creation project.

    "Maintenance"?!

    Just what are you expecting the sunshade to withstand? Hailstones? Or just solar radiation? (hint: that's what it's protecting us from)

    By itself, a doubling of CO2 from the start of the Industrial Revolution translates in to a 1 degree C of raised temps. Another doubling would result in even lower increase. So your concern is pointless and wrong.

    Well, I've provided cites showing that people who question AGW are treated like apostates to the True Religion, so if that's not enough evidence, we'll have to agree to disagree.

    Undeniably.

    And I've pointed out that, even at twice the price, it's still a quarter as expensive as the estimate for trying to reduce global warming in other ways. And it'll work.

    Look, let's take this in smaller bits:
    1. There's no technical stumbling block preventing us from deploying the sunshade.
    2. We just need to decide that catastrophic AGW is actually a threat, then fund the sunshade.
    3. Enough sunshade components are launched to block the required amount of solar radiation to halt global warming
    4. Replace damaged or malfunctioning components as required indefinitely
    5. Global Warming solved for centuries!
    Got facts that disagree?
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2017
  7. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Just because New Orleans is sinking does not mean the sea levels are not also rising. The article in regards to global warming simply points out that sea levels will rise, and will swallow New Orleans regardless of subsidence. The article from NASA shows that subsidence is occurring, but it doesn't look to refute the fact that the sea levels are rising as they are two different issues - they simply impact the same area.

    However, the article does not state the magnitude to which it is involved.

    Both articles point out that the disease spread is tied to climate change.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19199197

    Basically, the shift in temperature ****s with the frogs' immune system.

    1. Jesus this guy's article is bad.
    2. People being upset about information that goes against their beliefs is hardly anything new, nor exclusive to the left as the article points out. This simply shows backlash, but not fear of backlash.


    The guy automatically labels the beliefs as "assumptions", meaning that he doesn't even consider that people who believe in global warming do so based on evidence. It's obvious that he was not coming in good faith based on this. It's perfectly justifiable to take any claims he makes on the matter with a heavy degree of skepticism.​



    No, because again, the probability is incredibly low.

    Of this magnitude and scale, yes, it is:
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/a-major-contributor-to-the-syrian-conflict-climate-change/



    These events are not mutually exclusive.

    The drought is short term, and has more to do with luck than global warming:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hy-this-is-terrifying/?utm_term=.3087f717bf63

    The Third World has to be prevented from industrializing in the same manner we did, especially agriculturally.

    Sounds like things are going pretty well for him.

    Sounds less like questioning and more like he pretty much tried to call people liars.

    The article doesn't really state why she was fired outside of the title, although it seems more likely that she kept pitching the same news stories over and over again, and the station eventually had enough of it.

    This has more to do with politics and science as it neither mentions the scientist's name, nor their views.

    Okay, so we're now using solar panels? That's going to drive the cost up a **** ton.

    Odds are it would have to be automated to be cost effective according to the author.

    The crushing void that is the vacuum of space.
    Incredible heat on one side, incredible cold on the other.
    Giant ****ing rocks.


    And again, while an increase like this may not seem like a lot, when you look at it in terms of rate, we're killing the Earth very, very quickly.

    You're suggesting we use solar panels, which would cost thousands of times more than the suggest materials. And just imagine the pollution caused by the mass manufacturing.


    Largest object every built.
    Launched into space.
    No technical hurdles????????????????????????

    Again, I'm pretty skeptical about whether or not the size and scale of the project would halt global warming entirely.

    You don't exactly have the facts to disagree with to begin with so...
     
  8. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You think there is evidence of CAGW but you are wrong. There IS plenty of failure of projections.
     
  9. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    "I see that you have provided massive amounts of evidence suggesting global warming is real, but I'm just simply going to state that you are wrong without providing any evidence of my own."
     
  10. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All the evidence is available if you can tear yourself away from activist websites and actually learn how to read the IPCC jargon. Of course GW is real, the only constant in climate is change. AGW is generally agreed upon by scientists but not on degree or CO2 sensitivity. Even the IPCC lowered the low limit, widening the range based on unverified computer models. One would think if 'the science is settled' they would actually be able to pin down sensitivity. CAGW? That is the realm of hysterical activists with no bounds other than limits to imagination.
     
  11. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    No. It is your job to present evidence to support your claim, not mine.

    Yeah, the Earth is only heating at an unprecedented rate in a time when the Earth should be cooling, all the while the oceans are now heating, killing off even more species, perpetuating the mass extinction period we are now in. Not to mention that water scarcity will be a major cause of war in the coming decades and possibly bring about a nuclear holocaust.

    I don't see anything wrong with that.
     
  12. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL, you make a baseless hysterical claim with no proof or evidence and complain about others.
     
  13. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Science has actually done quite well over the centuries without being government funded.
     
  14. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    tbf, using my phone, and xenforo isn't exactly mobile friendly...

    but anyway:
    The Earth is heating at an incredible pace when it should be cooling

    Over the last 150 years, the Earth's average temperature has increased by 1°C
    [​IMG]

    Given temperature trends over the last 1,000,000 years, the Earth should have started to cool:
    [​IMG]

    However, we can see that the temperature appears to be flatlining, with this starting right around the time of the agricultural revolution:
    [​IMG]

    Also note how the Earth would only heat at a rate of 1°C over several thousand years, not 150.

    The oceans are heating:
    https://www.theguardian.com/comment...s-heating-big-problem-blue-planet-iucn-report

    Current extinction even we are in:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

    Water wars:
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-water-shortages-threat-terror-war

    Droughts in India and Pakistan, two very hostile nuclear powers:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_Pakistan
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/asia/gallery/india-drought-crisis/
     
  15. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    See that rise from 1900 to 1940? That isn't even attributed to the rise in CO2. By the way, if you made the graph taller it would look even scarier.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2017
  16. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Source?

    And again, if we look at the data in the long term (roughly 500,000 years to 1,000,000 years) we see that the Earth was able to maintain a constant temperature that correlates with the beginning of the agricultural revolution. Why? Well, plants obviously produce CO2, so when you start cultivating alot of plants, it's only natural you would see an increase in CO2.

    And if you increased the range of the graph on the Y axis, the trend would eventually become a straight line. The scale should have no impact on how the data is interpreted.
     
  17. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Source? IPCC.
     
  18. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Hi, welcome to the Internet.

    Now, there are these things called hyperlinks, which can take you to all sorts of places.

    When a person requests a source for something online, then it usually means providing a hyperlink to the study or article that the claim was based off of.
     
  19. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry you don't know much about the subject. Not my problem.
     
  20. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Then educate me through debate. From what I understand, it's kinda the point of the website, no?

    You have a lot of posts on here, so it certainly seems like you would know this.

    Unless you're... scared =]
     
  21. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    393
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    It also doesn't mean that god isn't pushing down on New Orleans with one of her feet.

    One of the problems with scientists today is how many of them are dishonest. So I shouldn't be surprised when you make claims that aren't true.

    In the article, Nasa said the reasons New Orleans is sinking include:

    ...withdrawal of water, oil and gas; compaction of shallow sediments; faulting; sinking of Earth’s crust from the weight of deposited sediments; and ongoing vertical movement of land covered by glaciers during the last ice age.​

    Nowhere does it mention climate change, let alone claim that "sea levels will rise, and will swallow New Orleans regardless of subsidence".

    Care to retract that?

    Ah, the agony of reading all the way to the end of a cite:

    Trees play an important role here by providing moisture through transpiration. Pepin suggests that extensive local deforestation in recent decades has likely reduced this flow of moisture, depleting the mountain’s icy hood.​

    And there are other articles I could have cited, but this HuffPo one probably won't offend your sensibilities given its provenance:


    Well, if you're desperate to find a link to climate change, they're not hard to find, but those links are usually very tenuous, as you'd have found by carefully reading the cite:

    "I'm not convinced that the effect [climate change] we've discovered could be considered responsible for declines or extinctions in the ways way that the spread of Bd can be considered responsible," said Thomas Raffel, lead scientist on the new research.

    "It might be, however, that climate change has sped up the decline or extinction after the parasite arrived," the Oakland University researcher told BBC News.​

    So even the scientist who found the link to climate change admits the connection is so thin it's anorexic.

    I pointed out an article that just happened last week as an example of the backlash skeptics get. As for fear of backlash, how about being charged with RICO violations?:

    Professor Wants to Use RICO to Punish “Climate Change Deniers”
    Michael E. Kraft, professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, suggested in an op-ed in the Providence Journal on April 11 that the Department of Justice should use RICO statutes to punish “climate change deniers.”
    Or be labeled a war criminal for climate change skepticism?:

    Bill Nye, "Science Guy," Open to Jail Time for Climate Change Skeptics
    Asked about environmental activist Robert Kennedy's assertion that climate skeptics should be tried as war criminals, the TV personality mused, "We’ll see what happens."
    ...
    As a taxpayer and voter, the introduction of this extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen... So I can see where people are very concerned about this, and they’re pursuing criminal investigations as well as engaging in discussions like this....That there is a chilling effect on scientists who are in extreme doubt about climate change, I think that is good.
    The fear of backlash is real and reasonable.


    Nitpicking, are we? Your use of the word "believe" also implies acceptance without proof:

    believe:
    to hold an opinion
    to accept as true​

    assumption:
    an assuming that something is true
    a fact or statement taken for granted
    So by your definition, it's obvious that you're not dealing in good faith on this matter. We should take any claims you make with a heavy degree of skepticism.

    And so it is with catastrophic climate change.

    When you live in an arid region, droughts come and go. Some will be longer than others, but the occurrence of droughts is to be expected.

    Of course. Because everything is caused by climate change!

    But the Arab Spring was a spontaneous series of revolutions against despotism, not climate change. Although if you can find one Arab protestor's sign reading END CLIMATE CHANGE, I might change my mind.

    Pretty much every bit of evidence from AGW alarmists can be written off to natural variation, so I know where you're coming from.

    Nope. The Third World has to be brought into First World status ASAP by whatever means necessary.

    I've provide multiple citations that people have lost jobs for expressing opinions skeptical of catastrophic climate change.

    I assume you no longer contend that such firings never happen.

    I know. Solar energy is so expensive!

    But the sunshield will be receiving all that free power, so it only makes sense to beam it to orbit.

    At this early stage, such speculation is silly. But there's no question that there would be plenty of work to go around even if it was just to develop an automated system.

    There's no such thing as a crushing void. In fact, a void is the perfect environment for sustaining something in pristine condition.

    As for incredible heat and cold, since vacuum has no temperature, the trick will be to bleed off constant incoming heat from the sun. Passive heat sinks will help as will highly reflective surfaces. It's all engineering.

    If only a giant rock would come floating by! We could capture it and tether some of the shield to it. Save money.

    Wrong. The issue is how quickly the planet is heating. By blocking that heat, the problem goes away.

    By the time we get serious about global warming, if ever, no doubt solar panels will be dirt cheap.


    It's a bunch of small objects being launched. We do it all the time.

    People who estimate it will cost $44 trillion to control the increase of global warming also say it will fail. But I'll bet you're in favor of spending the money anyway.

    So your skepticism about such large expenditures really hinges on whether you heart what's being funded.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2017
  22. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    ???

    Is there any evidence to support that this is an act of God? Because otherwise this is a strawman.

    [citation needed]

    Yes, the article is talking about New Orleans sinking, not the effect sea level rising.

    Yeah, so why are you presenting it like it refutes the effects of climate change?

    It suggests that this is probably the case, but not the extent of the impact.

    Get ****ed by your own article m8
    Lolwat? Suggesting probability does not mean that the probability is low.

    This is someone simply wanting something. Is there any reason to believe such an idea is widespread?

    See above.

    Have any of these policies been considered seriously?

    Lolwut? I think it's pretty obvious that I've looked at the evidence on this matter. I'm hardly making any grand assumptions with no basis what-so-ever.

    Lol no. We are seeing the effects of global warming right now, and if such trends continue (what reason do we have to believe that they won't? Even you admit there will be a 1C increase over the next 100 years), then the effects will be catastrophic.

    It's the worst drought in over 900 years. This is hardly a common occurrence.

    [​IMG]

    The Arab Spring was a rise against dictators after the people became more and more upset with their inability to deal with problems caused by climate change.

    Source?

    To have an Industrial revolutions come in two phases (at least, it did with us). First, there's the industrialization of agriculture, leading to a population boom. Then we see a second industrial revolution (factories n ****).

    If it's possible to propel Africa to the level of the post-industrial world without having them enter an industrial revolution, then sure, that's fine. But I see little reason to believe that is possible.

    I'll retract any claims I made stating that such firings never happen, sure.

    They aren't exactly cheap:
    https://www.solarpowerauthority.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-install-solar-on-an-average-us-house/

    Lolwut? So you're saying mass production of solar panels by people wouldn't be expensive as ****? Are we just paying people next to nothing then?

    For a select degree of individuals, sure. But it certainly wouldn't solve unemployment, especially in the long term. What are they to do once the project is completed?

    Fair enough. Just more to add to the cost then.

    Lol no. It would be moving far to fast to capture.

    The speed at which the planet is heating correlates with CO2 emissions though. So if CO2 emissions continue to increase, then the amount of heat being kept in still increases. In order to see a long term reduction in temperature, you would still need to reduce CO2 emissions.

    The article doesn't state how much of a price reduction there would be. Is there any reason to believe that they wouldn't still be far more expensive than simple disks?

    Although this does make a great substitute for fossil fuels, if further enhanced.

    There are roughly 2,000 satellites in orbit around the Earth.

    We would need to launch 20 million.

    Again, that has more to do with the allocation of funds, not the amount itself.

    Not in its current form, no.
     
  23. NullSpot the Destroyter

    NullSpot the Destroyter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    393
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    You made an unsupported statement without evidence, so I replied in kind.

    Subsidence. Remember that bullet when I explained how alarmists claim New Orleans is disappearing because of climate change but it turns out to be subsidence?

    You said this:

    The article in regards to global warming simply points out that sea levels will rise, and will swallow New Orleans regardless of subsidence. The article from NASA shows that subsidence is occurring, but it doesn't look to refute the fact that the sea levels are rising as they are two different issues - they simply impact the same area.
    It was laughably wrong, if not a lie. The article said nothing like that.


    Do you see articles on mainstream media websites calling global warming alarmists war criminals? Please cite them. Otherwise admit that global warming skeptics face the threat of backlash by speaking out.

    Not if we're blocking the extra energy from the sun.

    You've yet to make the case that the effects we're seeing are serious, meanwhile we've enjoyed a decade free of class 5 landfalling hurricanes.


    Of course they're not common, that's why we have 500-year floods and 500-year droughts. They occur infrequently but with natural variability, they pop up. Even 1000-year droughts.

    Source? Real source, as in photos of Arab demonstrators decrying climate change during the AS. Or speeches of rabble rousers calling for a reduction in CO2. Anything else is just wishful thinking on the part of alarmists.

    Fine. Then we've established that skeptics should reasonably fear backlash for being skeptical about global warming.

    Looking at the history of technology development and improvements in manufacturing, would you expect the performance of solar panels to increase dramatically or stay the same? Would you expect the costs of mass producing solar panels to stay the same or get cheaper?

    If global warming was a serious problem, we could launch the sunshield components without the ability to beam power to Earth's orbit if it was prohibitively expensive, but with the expectation that such a capability would eventually be added.

    Straw man alert! I never claimed that it would solve unemployment.

    If we're going to assemble a sunshield, it would make sense to build the components in orbit or on the Moon's surface, so at some point we'll build factories in the L5 or on Luna. That will signal the start of the Second Industrial Revolution.

    If it was coming in from the cometary belt and we discovered it quickly, that would be plenty of time to guide it with a gravity tractor or by bumping it with airbags.

    Granted, that would be tech we don't currently have fully developed.

    Don't be boggled by mere numbers. Humans have a track record of taking technology and improving it greatly. Take integrated circuits:

    Over the years, transistor sizes have decreased from 10s of microns in the early 1970s to 10 nanometers in 2017 with a corresponding million-fold increase in transistors per unit area. As of 2016, typical chip areas range from a few square millimeters to around 600 mm2, with up to 25 million transistors per mm2​
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2017
  24. Chrome

    Chrome Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2017
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Whaaaaaaaaaaat?

    You even posted an article about how the sea levels are rising.

    What the **** m8?

    Not lying.

    Try again.

    This simply suggests that some journals have a better verification process than others. I want facts that say "X amount of scientists knowingly lie"

    What's happening with this particular journal is frankly not even worth reporting. No respectable tumor biologist will ever cite anything from this journal and no health care policy will ever be made based on anything from this journal. I don't like to criticize Ars writers because they are certainly much better at scientific writing than I am, but in this case, this article could've used more background research on if this journal is actually of significant importance in the cancer field. Get some numbers on how many retractions or fraud cases have been discovered in high impact journals, what percentages they represent, and whether those articles made significant claims that affected patient care.

    You proved that subsidence also played a role, not that it was the only cause. Like holy ****, how hard is it to understand that a location can be sinking into the ground and the sea levels still be rising?

    holy **** m8

    >article points out that sea levels are rising
    >this will therefore affect port cities like New Orleans

    It doesn't specifically mention subsidence because they are two different problems. The only thing they have in common is that they are affecting the same geographical location.

    A and B can both be true. The data used to verify A and B both use different sources of information. A and B do not contradict eachother.

    Irrelevant. Whether or not such articles exist is irrelevant in regards to the popularity of the idea that skeptics should be prosecuted.

    There is no "extra energy". The sunshade would simply block out enough radiation to halt the heating of the Earth temporarily.

    This was not caused by only natural variability:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3241

    Restating the argument.

    Global warming was the underlying cause, not the primary reason.

    Erm, no. It's one thing for people to be fired. It's another thing to be afraid of being fired.

    That's like being afraid to go outside because people get hit by lightning.

    Well no **** they would get cheaper.

    The point is that they would still be far more expensive than not using solar panels.

    Then there's also the issue of transfering all of that energy as well.

    Okay? What does this have to do with the fact that the process would still have to be automated?

    m8, expeditions into space and to the moon are already expensive as ****. constructing large amounts of factories? holy ****.

    Like, we'd be going way past the $44 trillion you were bitching about.

    So you're expecting people to work there too?

    Then let me get this straight. You want to colonize the moon, build factories on it to then mass produce the largest construction project known to man using solar panels which will then be launched into space off the moon?

    I fail to see why this would apply to the technology needed to create this project.
     

Share This Page