Is Global Warming real?
- Thread starter Turd.Ferguson
- Start date
TheDoughAbides
Active member
13837288:Profahoben_212 said:
I realize this may sound like a stupid question and I could easily do my own reasearch but is there any literature on how turbines affect wind patterns? Or at least how they potentially could with mass implementation.
13837300:TheDoughAbides said:
Here you go.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/myth-debunked-wind-farms-dont-alter-climate-180949701/
The first paragraph has the best representation of why people oppose wind. They just don't want them built near them. Often times the biggest opposers of wind turbines are the people who didn't get chosen to have turbines sited on their property, and so not making the money off them that their neighbors are.
milk_man
Active member
A bunch of plants got covered up quickly and provided us with fossil fuels. We are burning this extremely concentrated plant matter and turning it back into CO2. This CO2 will eventually become plant matter again, and repeat. But fossil fuels are pretty much a one time thing, and they can't be burned forever. The earth is pretty resilient..
TheDoughAbides
Active member
13837533:milk_man said:
on a human timescale, yes. weird to think that one day in the distant future we could all be harvested by some other lifeform so they can watch alien porn on their alien smartphones
miroz
Active member
13837286:TheDoughAbides said:
This is the fallacy promoted by the 1970s "environmental" movement against nuclear power. The leaders of that movement believed that more abundant energy would cause human overrun of nature and inhibit preservation, so they convinced people to fear nuclear power, which at the time was still believed to make electricity "too cheap to meter."
This is obviously bullshit. Sustainability, efficiency, and recycling are important, but they are not the only issue in today's energy and climate crisis. Thinking that way neglects so many other aspects related to energy production and accessibility to resources. In the US, so many people sit on their high horses and preach "energy conservation". They talk about how much good they do by turning the lights off in their houses and installing new insulation, but don't understand that the first-world amenities they depend on draw massively more energy and resources than they could hope to impact.
History tells us that the world is not going to slow down. It is not fair to ask third world countries to slow down. Our perspective of the planet's health is not more important than people's access to electricity and clean cooking facilities, especially when those making the argument for "conservation" have leftovers in the refrigerator, reliable clean water, and baseload power. Without those amenities, people die today, not in 100 years when we've fucked the Earth.
Within those constraints, I believe we have two options: (1) we need to develop economically viable forms of clean energy that can be useful on a large scale worldwide; (2) artificially adjust markets so that clean energy becomes competitive. I think we should pursue both. #gonuclear
miroz
Active member
13837533:milk_man said:
I mean, I guess you're technically right. Your argument seems to imply that it's okay that we do this, and that the Earth will somehow rebound or survive. It will remain a rock circling the sun, but before we're done with fossil fuels, the changes we've set in motion on this planet will have caused many things - animals, planets, ecosystems, and many humans - to die. But I guess that's just they way things go! Circle of life and all that. Don't worry, on the global scale you're relatively wealthy, so chances are you won't be displaced from your home due to rising oceans or become a casualty in conflicts over dwindling resources.
Nuclear and Tesla's for ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wasn't there recently some advancements of carbon scrubbers and capture for coal fired power plants? If we have already paid the carbon price for developing the highly reliable coal wouldn't it make sense to invest a little more to make it clean? You know what else would have a huge impact on emissions, grounding air travel, or strictly capping it. I mean we could use trains to replace the shipping aspect, and limit people to the distance they are allowed to travel by air.
I do find it kind of funny that people think we are going to survive climate change (not saying we shouldn't try to eliminate our output). Eventually something most likely out of our control is going to end human life on earth.
Wasn't there recently some advancements of carbon scrubbers and capture for coal fired power plants? If we have already paid the carbon price for developing the highly reliable coal wouldn't it make sense to invest a little more to make it clean? You know what else would have a huge impact on emissions, grounding air travel, or strictly capping it. I mean we could use trains to replace the shipping aspect, and limit people to the distance they are allowed to travel by air.
I do find it kind of funny that people think we are going to survive climate change (not saying we shouldn't try to eliminate our output). Eventually something most likely out of our control is going to end human life on earth.
weastcoat
Active member
1. We gotta find a way to get rid of all the CO2 already in the atmosphere by planting a crazy amount of plants across earth.
2. Find an emission free energy source. Cars could run on electricity and the power plants need to run on something that doesn’t give off emissions. If we do all of this years on end CO2 levels will eventually decrease.
2. Find an emission free energy source. Cars could run on electricity and the power plants need to run on something that doesn’t give off emissions. If we do all of this years on end CO2 levels will eventually decrease.
TheDoughAbides
Active member
One hurricane is the product of enough energy to power the world for 200 years...
Catzarecoolz
New member
I believe it's a real problem, and I think that it's never too late to start trying to contribute to the solution.
TheDoughAbides
Active member
13838222:Lonely said:
Or take it one step further and build a giant floating wind farm that you can move with a hurricane or at least place it out in the ocean where a given hurricane is predicted to reach full strength
TheDoughAbides
Active member
13838378:Profahoben_212 said:
Yeah no shit a regular one would...this is entirely hypothetical. And a wind farm still wouldn't absorb all the latent heat
TheDoughAbides
Active member
13838222:Lonely said:
And Puerto Rico, evidently.
Iliveinutah
Active member
Seems like the consensus here is yes its real. If you are a little fuzzy on the details as to how and what we humans are doing to it I wrote a shortish argument that you should read fact check and commit to memory to use when you have situations like this that comes up in your own life. Its up to us to educate the people who are ignorant and to do that you must use facts not badgering and oppression.
climate is going through a change naturally ever 11 years called the solar cycle and that is simply because of the sun having high and low peaks in activity. This has nothing to do with climate change thanks to our magnetic field it has minimal effect. However, to look at the data for climate change you must not look at the temperature because we have not yet reached the point where we have extremely critical temperature changes. To notice man-made destruction on the climate you must study the history of PPM of carbon in the air as well as the type of carbon. We know the amount of carbon in the atmosphere from 800,000 years ago thanks to ice core drilling in Greenland, the process works by the ice sheet having small frozen pockets of air in them that we can drill and extract and measure the chemical makeup of the atmosphere all the way up till present day. Carbon is a known greenhouse gas meaning it is known to let heat in but not out. if you look at this FACTUAL DATA gathered by these drilling you can graph it and see that carbon has a normal level of 200-275PPM over the last 800,000 years. today's reading have shown that we have just surpassed the 400PPM mark. the rapid climb in carbon started at the beginning of the industrial revolution when we started burning carbon for energy ever since then it has been increasing at a rate that the earth HAS NEVER SEEN BEFORE HUMANS!
VERY CRITICAL PART OF ARGUMENT !!
secondly you must examine the type of carbon that we are seeing in the atmosphere today you will find that most all of the carbon I'm talking 90% is the isotope carbon 12 turns out that the only way that carbon 12 gets into the air is by the burning of very old carbon based life aka fossil fuels, and guess what, we are the only thing on this planet that is doing just that! carbon 14 is the naturally occurring carbon isotope in the atmosphere so if we were not the cause of climate change you would see large fluctuations in the percentage of carbon 14 but you do not. There are other greenhouse gasses that also are being emitted more heavily now than ever but carbon is our number 1 problem. It is now called climate change not global warming because not all areas will warm. We also are not seeing massive swings in climate yet because out buffer is the oceans ability to absorb carbon and deposit it as carbon rock. However this is leading to acidification of the oceans.. and that a whoooole other situation. Climate change it a dragon with many heads. We as humans continue to feed that dragon. sooner rather then later it will bite the hand that feeds it but by then it will be to late. It likely already is.
climate is going through a change naturally ever 11 years called the solar cycle and that is simply because of the sun having high and low peaks in activity. This has nothing to do with climate change thanks to our magnetic field it has minimal effect. However, to look at the data for climate change you must not look at the temperature because we have not yet reached the point where we have extremely critical temperature changes. To notice man-made destruction on the climate you must study the history of PPM of carbon in the air as well as the type of carbon. We know the amount of carbon in the atmosphere from 800,000 years ago thanks to ice core drilling in Greenland, the process works by the ice sheet having small frozen pockets of air in them that we can drill and extract and measure the chemical makeup of the atmosphere all the way up till present day. Carbon is a known greenhouse gas meaning it is known to let heat in but not out. if you look at this FACTUAL DATA gathered by these drilling you can graph it and see that carbon has a normal level of 200-275PPM over the last 800,000 years. today's reading have shown that we have just surpassed the 400PPM mark. the rapid climb in carbon started at the beginning of the industrial revolution when we started burning carbon for energy ever since then it has been increasing at a rate that the earth HAS NEVER SEEN BEFORE HUMANS!
VERY CRITICAL PART OF ARGUMENT !!
secondly you must examine the type of carbon that we are seeing in the atmosphere today you will find that most all of the carbon I'm talking 90% is the isotope carbon 12 turns out that the only way that carbon 12 gets into the air is by the burning of very old carbon based life aka fossil fuels, and guess what, we are the only thing on this planet that is doing just that! carbon 14 is the naturally occurring carbon isotope in the atmosphere so if we were not the cause of climate change you would see large fluctuations in the percentage of carbon 14 but you do not. There are other greenhouse gasses that also are being emitted more heavily now than ever but carbon is our number 1 problem. It is now called climate change not global warming because not all areas will warm. We also are not seeing massive swings in climate yet because out buffer is the oceans ability to absorb carbon and deposit it as carbon rock. However this is leading to acidification of the oceans.. and that a whoooole other situation. Climate change it a dragon with many heads. We as humans continue to feed that dragon. sooner rather then later it will bite the hand that feeds it but by then it will be to late. It likely already is.
milk_man
Active member
13838208:voy10 said:
Get rid of all the CO2? Wait you know what would happen right.. But I get what you're saying. & 2. Maybe it sounds easy to some people but technologically and economically it's a nightmare.. It'll only happen when it's actually economically viable. But at our current rate of consumption I think it's actually impossible.. (for the US at least)
Iliveinutah
Active member
13838522:voy10 said:
The Issue isn't that we need to plant more plants to reverse what we have done.. haha although I wish that was viable. The ocean is what takes most of the carbon out of the atmosphere. In return the carbon destroys the normal PH levels in the ocean. Killing reefs fish life and eventually us. Until the ocean has time to deposit all the abundant carbon nothing will change. However the more it takes in, the more life dies. we are already seeing the mass diving and bleaching from this.
Iliveinutah
Active member
13837300:TheDoughAbides said:
Have you ever wondered why they all face the same way? well this is the motor or props that pushes the earth to spin. so it has allot to do with wind patterns.
on a serious note, turbines have no effect of wind patterns the local area I mean within 100 yards are going to have prop wash much like a tall building creates. Pilots are taught to avoid the wash fields behind big objects like this (hills, building, windmills, tall structors with air moving over them) because of flying hazards however over all they do nothing to the over all wind patterns. Keeping in mind when you gain altitude you lose friction with the ground and wind speeds increase up until a certain point where density becomes an issue. Higher altitude= more wind = fuck them windmerrrs.
claim: I build space ships for money