/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11112620
I think that you're just telling us that nothing will convince you that you're wrong with this statement. What would it take (that is in any way possible) for you to change your mind?
Maybe you've just driven yourself to an un-falsifiable conclusion, and determined -based on that fact- that it is a strong and well supported world view.

>>11007725
>is there any way to test this prediction

All you need is elementary school maths. Current CO2 level is at 410 last year it was 408, next year it will be 412. In 10 years it will be 430 in 50 years it will be 510.
All you need to do is to add 2 for every year.
If we build more coal plants and more cars you would need to add 3 every year. If we replace coal and oil with renewable quickly you only need to add 1 per year. Once we go full renewable CO2 will stop to increase.

>>10980257
They are both ways of interpreting the world. Same with art.
You can bring them together by making a hybrid world view for yourself, or you can choose to reject alternative lenses of the world.
I think you should mainly use a scientific lens because it represents reality far better than the others. There's some value in the rest for sure though

>>10961362
For electricity to freely travel through the air it must have a really strong electric field. This causes a "dielectric breakdown" in the air turning it into a plasma and making the air work like a wire for a little bit. So electricity doesn't travel through the air because almost every electric field you see is way too weak.

Another way that electricity could travel through the air is with electromagnetic waves, but any waves you encounter in an ordinary day are way too weak to do anything. If they were strong enough to do anything with, they would heat the air and stuff way too much anyways.

Also, the explanation that air has a way higher resistance than a wire is also good.

>>10946120
kind of both

>>10852660
>>No solarpunk
wrong