Page 6 of 259 FirstFirst 123456789101112131656106 ... LastLast
Results 66 to 78 of 3361
  1. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    754
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Missouri Guy: you need phd in physics to really be able to follow the relevant scientific publications.

    However, for the average tech two things should be clear: changing the composition of the atmosphere does have an influence onto the planet. Best example were the ozon hole & freon. Even little concentration of these gases caused the ozon hole to form, or do someone also deny that it was caused by humans?
    Second, there is a proven correlation between Temp and CO2 from historical data. It would be naive to believe that temperature rise caused more co2 to stay in the atmosphere (it might be the case historically that temperatures have risen and caused degassing of oceanic co2) however rise in co2 from industrial activity will cause no temperature increase - it is a coupled system. Any of the two factors influences the other one.

    So no matter how you look at it, we should avoid running into co2 concentrations that we know were present at times where the climate was very unpleasant, at least for us humans. I'm really not interested in finding out how it is to live in climate of the dinosaur epoch.

  2. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Near Atlanta, GA.
    Posts
    14,840
    Post Likes
    I'm late to the game, so pardon me if I echo what has already been posted.


    Yes, the Earth is warming. The question is why.

    Certain political influences would have you believe that we're causing it, but their models and reports seem to always eventually get proven at least partly wrong. Through in their motives and follow the money trail, and things become even more suspect.

    We know from history and science that the Earth has gone through both warming and cooling periods before, and in times when humans did not posses the ability to influence it. So those cycles up until the last hundred or so years were cyclical and entirely natural.

    Do we now have the ability to influence climate? Yes, to some degree. But we also underestimate nature's ability to self-correct for such matters. The planet is amazingly resilient, and has mechanisms built in that self-regulate at least to a point.

    Certainly, we need to monitor climate change, and when we find that human activity is destructive, try to change it. But the problem with that is, the issue has been made political, and most of the "research" is government funded where there are agendas present. Meaning...we're getting a lot of junk science and studies that are slanted toward a predetermined conclusion. And that predetermined conclusion always seems to involve spending enormous sums of money and causing economic damage.

    There's also a lot of incorrect information being put out regarding things like the melting of glacial mass and how that affects sea levels. Those of us who understand science, particularly details like how water expands as it freezes, what percentage of glaciers are underwater, and the water cycle will know what I'm referring to.

    Are humans contributing to climate change? Maybe, but I suspect our influence is minor in relation to natural forces. Regardless, we need to get this issue away from those who use it as a political tool before we can get good studies and good science on it.

  3. Likes vin lashon liked this post
  4. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    754
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    I'm still not geting it: why is there such large resistance against developing new technologies and getting rid of fossil fuels? Even if you dont do it now, at some point that stuff will run out (or again some deniers here claiming oil is not of fossil origin? eh? ), what you do then without oil?

  5. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    754
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by Special-K View Post
    Are humans contributing to climate change? Maybe, but I suspect our influence is minor in relation to natural forces. Regardless, we need to get this issue away from those who use it as a political tool before we can get good studies and good science on it.
    did you see how many of us are there recently and how the planet looks like everywhere (deforestation, pollution, megacities, concrete all over the place etc)? Natural forces? Which ones?

  6. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Near Atlanta, GA.
    Posts
    14,840
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by gustavhorna View Post
    I'm still not geting it: why is there such large resistance against developing new technologies and getting rid of fossil fuels? Even if you dont do it now, at some point that stuff will run out (or again some deniers here claiming oil is not of fossil origin? eh? ), what you do then without oil?
    Who said there is?

    But many of us have seen where politics has forced things like this before their time, and often the results are not good.

    As a general rule, the free market and private money will respond when the need and economic viability is there.

    BTW...might wanna be careful using phrases like "science deniers" here. We have some keep scientific minds on this forum.

  7. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Near Atlanta, GA.
    Posts
    14,840
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by gustavhorna View Post
    did you see how many of us are there recently and how the planet looks like everywhere (deforestation, pollution, megacities, concrete all over the place etc)? Natural forces? Which ones?
    We actually have more trees now than we did 35 years ago.

    Sea levels have been rising for many thousands of years. You know we used to have land bridges between continents that we don't know. Did humans cause that in ancient times?

    As for natural forces...do you really not know?

  8. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Beatrice, NE
    Posts
    9,611
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by gustavhorna View Post
    I'm still not geting it: why is there such large resistance against developing new technologies and getting rid of fossil fuels? Even if you dont do it now, at some point that stuff will run out (or again some deniers here claiming oil is not of fossil origin? eh? ), what you do then without oil?
    This right here is part of the problem. In the 70's they were saying we would run out of oil by the turn of the century. It didn't happen. Then in the 90's they said we would run out of oil by 2025. The last I heard we had more oil reserves than ever that would last at lest 50 years. That gas can should have been bone dry years ago yet we have more now than before. Who is wrong?

    Now add to that in the 70's there was a plan to seed the arctic ice cap with coal dust to warm it because it was supposedly too cold. If we are too warm right now I am glad they didn't do it back then aren't you? So what do we do if we pull the trigger on a new scheme to fix the climate and it too is wrong. We have just added to the problem instead of solving it. I will get very concerned when I see them make a prediction that comes down as they say it will. The problem is it has never happened and all their predictions are for 100, 200 or more years down the road. If their models are so accurate they should be able to say that in 2040 the mean global temp will be X, and be within a few 10ths. Is that asking too much?

    As to new tech, go for it, but understand it has to be sustainable, reliable, and inexpensive with the added bonus as easy to use. They have some fuel cells for cars but the refueling is beyond most adults last I knew so it is not practical. Electric cars, not hybrids but total electric cars don't seem practical at this point. Here is the issue where will the electricity come from. You want to get rid of FF so coal plants have to go. Solar only works when the sun is shining, wind only works when the wind is blowing. Hydro has been tapped out meaning all the most practical points have been used. Then there is nuclear, no one will even talk about that. How about we drill down and tap the Earths mantle with thermocouples/powerpiles? Then what happens if we over cool the earths mantle or worse yet we accidentally create volcanoes. Then there is the idea of powering the grid off of everyone's car, but if you drain a car it won't go anywhere and if you charge all the cars there will be nothing left for the grid. My personal favorite tech is hydrogen but until someone figures out a way to create it using less energy than Hydrogen contains it doesn't make much sense does it. I am all for new tech but at this point there is not a practical solution on the horizon that I have heard about.

  9. #73
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bay Area California
    Posts
    24,468
    Post Likes
    I'm glad you brought that up. Because NASA already proved that the ozone hole was not created by man. Politics does say that man created the ozone hole. There goes those darn politics again!

    For what it is worth, it was actually NACA. Which was NASA's 'predecessor'. You see, they were measuring the gasses in the stratosphere, and noticed the hole back in the 1950's. It was (and is) a cyclical thing.

    The irony is that they dismissed their readings because they weren't looking for that phenomena, but it did show up in their analysis. At the time, they thought the 'abnormal' readings were because the sensors weren't calibrated for ozone. After they checked the calibration, they found that the readings were correct.

    Why wasn't or isn't man's fault? Because of the amount of CFC's that had been produced at the time, and the amount of time it takes for gasses at sea level to circulate and actually get into the stratosphere.

    My source? NASA itself. When I was working out there. I used to service the refrigerator on the airplane that was taking the current air samples. The crew chief and the scientists were scoffing at the politics. Told me the whole story. And what a joke the politicians were.

    Problem is, at the time, the economy was bad. And money began changing hands. New factories needed to be built to manufacture new refrigerants. When money changes hands, that's a good thing in a bad economy. And, of course, the government always gets their cut.

    Sorry. You've been duped again.


    Quote Originally Posted by gustavhorna View Post
    Missouri Guy: you need phd in physics to really be able to follow the relevant scientific publications.

    However, for the average tech two things should be clear: changing the composition of the atmosphere does have an influence onto the planet. Best example were the ozon hole & freon. Even little concentration of these gases caused the ozon hole to form, or do someone also deny that it was caused by humans?
    Second, there is a proven correlation between Temp and CO2 from historical data. It would be naive to believe that temperature rise caused more co2 to stay in the atmosphere (it might be the case historically that temperatures have risen and caused degassing of oceanic co2) however rise in co2 from industrial activity will cause no temperature increase - it is a coupled system. Any of the two factors influences the other one.

    So no matter how you look at it, we should avoid running into co2 concentrations that we know were present at times where the climate was very unpleasant, at least for us humans. I'm really not interested in finding out how it is to live in climate of the dinosaur epoch.
    If you were a real tech, you'd solder a relay on that board and call it good to go.

    I do a triple evac with nitro to remove non condensables.

    I use 56% silver on everything except steel.

    Did you really need the " If you were a real tech " ??

  10. #74
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,166
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by gustavhorna View Post
    I'm still not geting it: why is there such large resistance against developing new technologies and getting rid of fossil fuels? Even if you dont do it now, at some point that stuff will run out (or again some deniers here claiming oil is not of fossil origin? eh? ), what you do then without oil?
    What resistance to the development of new technologies?
    "No matter how thirsty your imagination, mirages contain no water"

  11. Likes lions_lair liked this post
  12. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    napping on the couch
    Posts
    12,835
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Lahrs View Post
    You are attaching political baggage to my scientific understanding. I'm not interested.
    If you are upset with politics getting in the way of fixing climate change, you would think you'd be just as upset with the democrats as you are with conservatives. They turned the entire issue into a political issue.

    Ive said before and I'll keep repeating it. American Democrats are nothing like European or Candian liberals.

  13. Likes vin lashon liked this post
  14. #76
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bay Area California
    Posts
    24,468
    Post Likes
    Keep in mind, he thinks our oil reserves actually come from fossils.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh B View Post
    What resistance to the development of new technologies?
    If you were a real tech, you'd solder a relay on that board and call it good to go.

    I do a triple evac with nitro to remove non condensables.

    I use 56% silver on everything except steel.

    Did you really need the " If you were a real tech " ??

  15. Likes lions_lair liked this post
  16. #77
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    754
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by BBeerme View Post
    Problem is, at the time, the economy was bad. And money began changing hands. New factories needed to be built to manufacture new refrigerants. When money changes hands, that's a good thing in a bad economy. And, of course, the government always gets their cut.

    Sorry. You've been duped again.
    hard to argue against this huge pile of BS.... did you ever take a look at statistics for skin cancer from e.g. Australia? Now you will say it is a conspiracy theory and it is caused by additives in sun cream put there by industry to make more money and has nothing to do with ozone hole... really nothing. Ask a chemist about photo-dissociation of CFCs!

    folks I'm really loosing my hope for America... with these widespread gaps in education it is hopeless to discuss it further.

  17. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    754
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by BBeerme View Post
    Keep in mind, he thinks our oil reserves actually come from fossils.
    it comes from the hot earth's core replenishing the natural petroleum deposits, satisfied?

Page 6 of 259 FirstFirst 123456789101112131656106 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •