Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#5,578
#5,578
Sandvol said:
Somebody please tell Trout the Earth is 4 billion year old. This Global Warming stuff is wrecking his mind.
Click to expand...

You said "historical." Look up the definition of "historical."

Not that it matters. If you meant "prehistoric," you'd still not be right.

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/Honisch_et_al_2012_Science_ocean_acidification.pdf

If you want to be informed, quit reading blogs and start reading the actual scientific literature. Hint: if the graphics they show you on a blog are for a particular location and they are referring to a global system, they're BSing you.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#5,582
#5,582
Oh no Highlander 2 is becoming a reality!

Quick America give up everything that makes CO2 because the rest of the world is either too stupid or developing themselves and god forbid we interfere with their countries development.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,583
#5,583
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,585
#5,585
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,589
#5,589
#5,590
#5,590
Grand Vol said:
BoA likes to fly with the political winds.

Targeted? Gun sellers' 'high risk' label from feds cuts banking options, hurts business - Washington Times
Click to expand...
thanksobama.jpg


Even the WSJ has been talking about the threat of stranded assets. And this is not just an American phenomenon, obviously.

Big Oil’s Disruptive Climate Change:
Oil majors face a real risk of stranded assets—and not just related to efforts to limit carbon emissions
 
#5,592
#5,592
So answer me this Bart...

Say we go green with vehicles and whatnot. Does that mean the oil production stops?
 
#5,593
#5,593
I'll say normally the burning of fossil fuels wouldn't bother me.

But the dudes out here doing lawn maintenance outside my office constantly revving that leaf blower and hedge trimmer up and down gets annoying after a while. And there's only so far you can push a single blade of grass...
 
#5,594
#5,594
McDad said:
Why did you not answer what happens to a hypothesis when one other scientists don't find the same conclusion? You are the consummate scientist and I thought you would know. I'm just a simpleton. I don't know of these things.
Click to expand...

Oh c'mon McDad, you're more intelligent than you let on :)

If a scientist disagrees with the findings of a paper, they are welcome to submit comments on that paper or to carry out experiments and publish a paper of their own. Repeatability is crucial to science. It is basically what separates science from pseudoscience.

And again, I must emphasize that peer-review and publication are not the be-all end-all in scientific research. It is merely the beginning. Publications must withstand the scrutiny of the scientific community.

Now answer me this McDad. What happens when scientists (even Koch-funded climate skeptics) do find the same conclusion time and time again, and that conclusion is inconvenient to corporate interests and far right wing ideologues? Will the Christopher Bookers of the world ever stfu? Or will they just perpetuate their noise soup?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,595
#5,595
Grand Vol said:
I'll say normally the burning of fossil fuels wouldn't bother me.

But the dudes out here doing lawn maintenance outside my office constantly revving that leaf blower and hedge trimmer up and down gets annoying after a while. And there's only so far you can push a single blade of grass...
Click to expand...

Air manipulation. Necessary evil.
 
#5,596
#5,596
Grand Vol said:
So answer me this Bart...

Say we go green with vehicles and whatnot. Does that mean the oil production stops?
Click to expand...
It will not be an instantaneous transition. It will take a few decades. But to get there fast enough, we need to start getting serious about this yesterday.

And no, oil production will not stop entirely. It's useful for things other than burning, e.g. plastics
 
#5,598
#5,598
BartW said:
And no, oil production will not stop entirely. It's useful for things other than burning, e.g. plastics
Click to expand...

Bingo. And being that plastics fit right into the great scheme of reduce, reuse and recycle, it's safe to say they would be pushed just as much or even more in the future. So why would oil companies be at risk of banks walking out on them if they are producing a product that's not only needed, but highly encouraged by the environmental movement?
 
#5,599
#5,599
Grand Vol said:
Bingo. And being that plastics fit right into the great scheme of reduce, reuse and recycle, it's safe to say they would be pushed just as much or even more in the future. So why would oil companies be at risk of banks walking out on them if they are producing a product that's not only needed, but highly encouraged by the environmental movement?
Click to expand...

Environmentalists love plastic? That's news to me. And if we actually R^3 effectively, wouldn't that decrease the demand for plastic?

Either way, the demand for fossil fuels will drop and riskier projects should get shelved first. I'm interested to see how this play out in regards to Shell's intention to drill the Arctic. It's a big-ish story here in Seattle.

Shell and high water: the climate battle of Seattle

Activists aim to block Shell's Arctic drilling rigs from Seattle waterfront

Inb4 "have fun getting arrested." I couldn't squeeze my ass into a Kayak if I wanted to :p
 
#5,600
#5,600
BartW said:
Environmentalists love plastic? That's news to me. And if we actually R^3 effectively, wouldn't that decrease the demand for plastic?
Click to expand...

Nope, because the demand for such still goes up as plastics take the place of traditional materials like metals or woods. And even recycling doesn't/can't regain 100% of the original material.

Population grows, demand for products rises, more expensive materials are displaced by cheaper plastics, etcetera. The demand for plastics will likely not be reduced.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top