/sci/ - Science & Math

turning air into gasoline is net neutral, at this point we need net negative approaches

also nothing about climate science advocacy is virtue signaling

>>9808263
We have a negative approach.

Ban the gasoline, diesel engines.
Ban coal and natural gas power plants.
Ban natural gas for all uses.

Everyone uses solar battery.
The end, done.
Climate change problem solved.

>>9808285
It gets down to 20 below regularly where I live - as well as everywhere around here for 300 miles.

>>9808237
The problem with this kind of approach is producing gasoline from air requires much more energy than you the gasoline provides. It's a net negative.

It's sort of like saying you can prevent climate change by pointing your air conditioner out the window.

>>9808285
>battery

And, you've fucked everything over again.

>>9808237
biofuel is the exact same idea but better

>>9808237
poverty can be stopped by having everyone win the lottery

>i'll believe it when i see it

>>9808293
There are two options
1)Switch to renewables and go electric everything
2)Produce gas from the air using renewables
We will be using renewables either way. I don't think anybody is proposing we burn fuel to turn air into gasoline. Unless there is a major breakthrough in battery technology, gasoline will remain the most energy-dense power supply which is best-suited for transportation.
Nobody cares how much a stationary energy source weighs. When the energy source is required to move, reduced weight is important.
The main question is if the energy savings from reduced weight outweighs all of the losses from converting air->gas->mechanical energy.

>>9808263
>net neutral
Takes energy to do it. It's far more negative than straight gasoline, like ethanol.

>>9808285
Solar is a decent idea in some parts of the world. A really bad idea in most.
No matter where, it's not good on it's own.

And that's not just a "sometimes there's no sun" issue.
You need _exactly_ the right amount of electricity and solar doesn't have a good way of controlling that.
>battery
Horrible for the environment.

>Climate change problem
Our climate models aren't reductionist enough. Most you can say honestly is there may or may not be a problem and that's worth looking into.

>>9808340
Fair.

>>9808293
Wouldn't it be a good idea to use nuclear power for this? It's carbon-free. Use nukes to take the carbon out of the air.

Fuck, every time I think about nuclear power with relation to climate change, I get upset. It SHOULD be part of the post-carbon energy mix. It's proven to work and it's baseload power. Fucking greenies have ruined everything. We could have cut our emissions decades ago.

>>9808646
Nuclear is another energy source based on a non-renewable resource, with its own set of pollution and accident related problems.

And besides, when have the consumers ever used energy that didn't directly benefit themselves? Literally every single technological development and efficiency improvement since the enlightenment has been used only to provide for more consumers. But whatever, blame the "envirohippies" for standing in the way of "progress" if it makes you feel better.

>>9808658
Except they literally are responsible for the end of nuclear power, at least in the West. Nuclear was well on its way to competing with coal and oil before Three Mile Island and Chernobyl unnecessarily spooked too many people.

>>9808668
you forgot one. anyway. so much hubris... if you want to blame anyone for how fucked up everything is, blame hubris.

>>9808237
It costs more energy to do that than what the gasoline gives, which doesn't solve our fundamental problem

>>9808340
The key flaw behind creating synthetic fuel from air is the exact same problem hindering all the other advances in this direction. We do not yet have a carbon neutral method for producing hydrogen on an industrial scale, which forces the process to either use fossil fuels (for conventional hydrogen production) or unsustainably massive amounts of energy for electrolysis.
Whoever cracks this one is quickly going to become the richest man on earth.

>>9808285
Sure, that'll only take a couple hundred years.

>>9808326
this tbf. but solar furnace could be a good alternative too. only thing with biofuel is the amount of area a field takes up.

>>9808285
>Climate change problem solved
Umm, no sweaty, it doesn't work like that.

>>9808285
We are currently have 1,5 degree celsius to much, (and currently experience all its destructive consequences) if we can reduce that by sucking out the co2 to a level where we are stable again but still suffer from the effects experienced of this period of rapid climate change. You honesty have like 10 to 30 years to do this fix Max.

>>9808237
Yeah we can go virtue signal about the e national anthem and the Confederate flag

Bullshit. Sequestering Carbon from the atmosphere will require energy, and likely a lot of energy since CO2 is a small fraction of the atmosphere. You're going to have to burn fossil fuels to get this energy out of the atmosphere, since most of our energy is from fossil fuels, not renewables. Then there's the fact that you're going to combust this carbon yet again and place it back into the atmosphere, so it does nothing to actually address the issue of increasing atmospheric co2 ppm.

>>9808285
>dude just ban civilization lmao

>>9808237
It would cost less to not create a tonne but bizniss is bizniss.

>>9809334
It's already too late, and nobody is doing anything to reverse the trend. At best some are making halfhearted effort to slow it a little.

>>9809637
>nobody is doing anything to reverse the trend
>nobody

That turns out not to be the case, though the news is often hidden in the way it is reported.

For example, look at this graph from https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-set-to-rise-2-percent-in-2017-following-three-year-plateau

The total emissions are increasing, and if you don't look closely, it looks like everybody is trending up. But look more closely -- CO2 emissions in the US and EU have been declining -- but, because they stack them on top of the rapidly-increasing "rest of the world" category, it looks like the trend line is UP in both places.

So yeah, somebody is doing something to reverse their share of the trend. Any gains they are making are being drowned by worsening emissions in places that are not.

>>9808285
>china and india doing any of that shit
>batteries
loving every laugh

>>9808646
What about we use that new tech that is overunity device on this planet but is not in outer space.? Cannot we use that?

Or trees! We will use trees to reduce CO2!!!

I will plant tree for that price no fucking problem.

We had this kind of claim several times before and I call bullshit. Concentration of carbon dioxide is about 1 vol.-%, so whatever you do with your later machine, you need to pump *lots* of air through it. For that, you need lots of power, and guess where that comes from right now.
Apart from that, CO2 is pretty much chemically inert, so you need a catalyst to "activate" it. These catalysts are usually enormously tedious to synthesize and have horrible yields. As a consequence, they cause a lot of waste, just like about every fine chemical. Whatever that guy's working on, it's a dead end.
Also,
>published in low-impact journal
If it ain't Science, C&EN or Angewandte, we ain't talking, son.

>>9808237
And in order to actually make gasoline you need to supply hydrogen and energy. Without non-carbon emitting energy sources this isn't even worth considering.
>>9808646
You're damn right we should. Any time you encouter someone who wants to fight climate change ask them how many degrees of warming it's worth to exclude the use of nuclear power. Also new SMRs will be compatible with renewables, being able to ramp up and down with demand.

>>9808658
>non-renewable resource
Assuming we drop bitcoin, the next mass extinction will hit before we can run out.

>>9808760
There's nothing to crack, that's just the rules of the game. The point he's making is that synthesizing gasoline is more practical (and cleaner) than putting huge batteries in cars.

>>9809334
>We are currently have 1,5 degree celsius to much,
We have no baseline to say that from, no way of saying how much of that is artificial or natural, and no way of saying whether it's a good or a bad change.

>>9809811
Have you SEEN the shit that gets by in Science these days?

>>9808263
>also nothing about climate science advocacy is virtue signaling
So buying carbon credits and overlooking Chinese industrialization is deeply meaningful progress to you?

>>9810121
well I can't tell China what to do bro

>>9809847
>>9810082

I just find it fitting that you people always want to use MORE energy to solve any problem - as if there are no risks associated with doing so, and that that isn't exactly what got us in this situation to begin with. The obvious solution is to use less of everything. Why is it that that is so unpalatable to you people?

>>9809847
>>9810082

I just find it fitting that you people always want to use MORE energy to solve any problem - as if there are no risks associated with doing so, and that that attitude isn't exactly what got us in this situation to begin with. The obvious solution is to use less of everything. Why is it using less so unpalatable to?

>>9808285
This

>>9809847
>>9810082

I just find it fitting that you people always want to use MORE energy to solve any problem - as if there are no risks associated with doing so, and that that attitude isn't exactly what got us in this situation to begin with. The obvious solution is to use less of everything. Why is it that using less so unpalatable to you?

>>9808237
>Hey let's solve global warming by replacing fossil fuels with carbon neutral nuclear and renewables.
>>No, global warming is a hoax, what are you a commie?

10 years later...

>>HAHAHA climate alarmists BTFO we can be carbon neutral with carbon capture now! (for more money than it would take to replace fossil fuels with nuclear and renewables)

Jesus Christ deniers are retarded.

>>9809334
They said that 10 to 30 years ago.

>>9809334
>We are currently have 1,5 degree celsius to much, (and currently experience all its destructive consequences)

Such as?

>>9810160
I can't speak for everyone, but most people I know are firmly skeptical rather than deniers

>>9808362
>Our climate models aren't reductionist enough.
Nice meme.

>>9810174
Skeptics look at the evidence. Anyone who looks at the overwhelming amount of evidence on global warming and denies that it is occuring/human-caused/serious is simply doing it for political or psychological reasons.

>>9810148
There's just one little problem, people don't want to have shittier lives. It is infinitely harder, both politically and economically, to make people stop consuming rather than making them pay a bit more for what they are consuming. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.

>>9810189
>people don't want to have shittier lives

Maybe so, but that's purely a cultural thing. It's possible and easy to live a fulfilling life while using less. One big thing that's getting in the way of that is politicians continually selling the idea that more is better instead of giving people the hard truth. I think it might surprise you how popular a politician that levels honestly with the people might be.

>>9810182
> is simply doing it for political or psychological reasons.

You do realize that the reason most people are skeptical is because there is a very large incentive for politicians/law makers/climate scientists(grant funded) to exaggerate or downright lie about the models.

To start with the big one, politicians only ever care about power and wealth. A very easy method of gaining immense amounts of both simultaneously is to use fear-mongering to drive public opinion and policy. The more grave the threat, the more people panic and are willing to do unreasonable things to avoid the outcome that they propose. Climate change policy is absolutely perfect for that because not only do the 'mass extinction event' and 'billions will die' make excellent sources of fear, but they can blame the entire population simultaneously and instill fear across the entire populace with little effort. Not only that, but then they can offer what is essentially an ultimatum to take their policy option which will prevent everyone inevitable death.
>"you can pay my carbon tax and trade carbon credits or you will be dead in 10 years along with everyone else"
Idiots cling to that shit like flies on shit and these politicians make insane amounts of money off of their fear. Al Gore did exactly this and made a lot of people gunshy when it comes to climate change.

A lesser reason, but still fairly important, is the fact that scientists are not objective, no matter how hard they try to be. Whether it be getting scolded at by their boss, the company paying for the research, or the government, they typically try to deliver the outcome that the funders are expecting/want. This keeps money coming in and food on their table. The political nature around climate change makes it career suicide to publish anything that goes against the current narritive because thousands of activists groups(from your good old political friends) will shut your shit down instantly.

>>9810203
>Maybe so, but that's purely a cultural thing.
It's a fact of life that you won't get around by telling people differently.

>>9810189
>making them pay a bit more for what they are consuming

you're assuming that taxing them will make them consume less. it will not. the money will just be spent by the government instead of the people taxed, and overall consumption will not be reduced.

>>9810215
>It's a fact of life that you won't get around

maybe to you it is. but there are billions of people who live very happy lives while using less. perhaps you could learn something from them.

>>9810215
>It's a fact of life
I bet more people than not given the choice would say no, i dont need that porche, my taurus works just fine. people who think they need a porche are the problem.

>>9810204
>You do realize that the reason most people are skeptical is because there is a very large incentive for politicians/law makers/climate scientists(grant funded) to exaggerate or downright lie about the models.
The same could be said about any scientific fact you want to deny. Do you deny evolution, vaccines, round earth, etc. simply because scientists make a living telling you these things? This is not a hallmark of skepticism, it is the hallmark of a conspiracy theorist. If you were actually a skeptic, you would be skeptical of such baseless speculation.

>o start with the big one, politicians only ever care about power and wealth. A very easy method of gaining immense amounts of both simultaneously is to use fear-mongering to drive public opinion and policy.
Yes, which is why conservatives lie about climate change and fear monger over the effects of mitigation. They tell people that it will destroy the economy and destroy jobs, when in fact it will save the economy from bigger losses in the future and will simply replace jobs with other jobs. This is done to acquire power by obtaining lobbying dollars from fossil fuel companies in exchange for preserving the wealth of fossil fuel companies. The problem with your "argument" is that it can be turned on anything. It is not selective, it tells us nothing.

>A lesser reason, but still fairly important, is the fact that scientists are not objective, no matter how hard they try to be. Whether it be getting scolded at by their boss, the company paying for the research, or the government, they typically try to deliver the outcome that the funders are expecting/want.
So all science is fake! Or maybe you have to actually look at and find a flaw in the science to determine that it's fake, instead of just speculating that it is. This also ignores that scientists will always get more funding and prestige by obtaining novel or revolutionary results, rather than just repeating what everyone else has said.

>>9810220
>you're assuming that taxing them will make them consume less.
Increasing the price of something decreases demand. Fundamental economics, not an assumption.

>it will not. the money will just be spent by the government instead of the people taxed, and overall consumption will not be reduced.
The consumption that we are trying to reduce is the consumption of fossil fuels. There is no reason spending by the government has to increase consumption of fossil fuels. Any reasonable carbon tax would have the revenue spent on nuclear and renewable research and infrastructure, further mitigating global warming.

>>9810178
Name one STEM field besides climatology that approves of the current models.

>>9810233
If that were true, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place. Everyone knows fossil fuels are bad, few are willing to do anything about it. Thus regulation is required. You are not going to get any regulation passed that significantly lowers the quality of life of the populace. And luckily you don't need to. I don't see any point in discussing this further, it's very clear.

>>9810242
OK, all of them:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

>>9810246
>https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
>Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method
>""the scientific method""
Stopped reading right there.

>>9808237
what i like best is the climate """skeptics""" who now accept climate change's existence.
when it was looking expensive to deal with it, their solution was to pretend it didn't exist.
thankfully, non-brainlet scientists took it seriously and looked for solutions.

>>9810264
>gets BTFO
>Nope I'm going to ignore your answer for no relevant reason and not because I lost the argument
Wow, you are triggered.

>>9810273
>>gets BTFO
>>Nope I'm going to ignore your answer for no relevant reason and not because I lost the argument
Who are you quoting?

>>9810275
>I lost the argument.
Thank you for admitting that, it's really brave of you.

>>9810121
You know china is trying to shut down coal fired plants in most of the country by 2025 and is actively investing in renewables right?

And that a critical component of Xi Thought (which has been elevated to the communist party's platform and codified alongside Deng and Mao) is creation of industry that is cooperative with environmental needs?

Or did you just hear about >le china boogeyman and not do some independent research? Protip: India is more of the problem when it comes to industrializing pollution in the long run, not china.

>>9810279
>>I lost the argument.
Who are you quoting?

>>9810302
You. Right here >>9810264 and >>9810275. Luckily I can translate from sore loser denier language to English

>>9810245
Wow you're just going to leave without calling someone a liar?

>>9810307
>You. Right here >>9810264
Where does it say "I lost the argument." in "Stopped reading right there."?

>>9810264
>the scientific method
No such thing.

>>9810316
>Where does it say "I lost the argument." in "I lost the argument."?
I don't understand what issue you're having.

>>9810325
>I don't understand what issue you're having.
I asked "Where does it say "I lost the argument." in "Stopped reading right there."?", which implies that my issue is locating the phrase "Stopped reading right there." inside the phrase "I lost the argument."

>>9810328
>I asked "Where does it say "I lost the argument." in "I lost the argument."?", which implies that my issue is locating the phrase "I lost the argument." inside the phrase "I lost the argument."
Seems self explanatory once you put everything into English. Maybe your issue is that you are up mixing sore loser denier language with English?

>>9810332
>Seems self explanatory once you put everything into English.
Which part of "Stopped reading right there." isn't English?

>>9810334
All of it is sore loser denier language.

>>9810308
Oh nevermind. You called all conservatives liars here.
>>9810236

Such a distinctive style you have.

>>9810337
>All of it is sore loser denier language.
I'm a skeptic, not a denier.

>>9810345
The guy is a well know neoliberal troll. He leaves his repulsive stench all over the internet. Don't even bother responding to him. Anyone who doesn't want to be taxed or makes a point he can't address is promptly called a liar.

>>9810359
>The guy is a well know neoliberal troll.
I'm not a "guy".

>>9810236
I just love how you automatically blame conservatives and republicans with the tone that I am either of them(i'm not). I did not specify any particular political affiliation, in fact, I specifically said that politicizing climate change/science was a major part of the problem and being the typical type of dumbfuck that makes people, especially the groups you generalize, more skeptical because no matter what they say you climb up on your high horse and act holier than thou. In addition to that, you completely sperged out and jumped beyond conclusions.

> This is not a hallmark of skepticism, it is the hallmark of a conspiracy theorist.
False Equivalence
> If you were actually a skeptic, you would be skeptical of such baseless speculation.
No true scottsman
Do you deny evolution, vaccines, round earth, etc. simply because scientists make a living telling you these things?
Also False Equivalence
>Yes, which is why conservatives lie about climate change and fear monger over the effects of mitigation.
Projecting
>So all science is fake!
Yes, all science is fake, the earth is flat, we never landed on the moon, and lizard people control the government.
YOU are the reason people are skeptical of climate change policy because all the holier than thou faggots like yourself just love to wave their moral dicks around about how much smarter they are then everyone who disagrees with them.

>>9810368
at least one of your aliases suggests you're a guy. or who knows maybe there's more than one shill out there who incorporates the technique of calling people liars into their toolbox. you really oughta try to avoid doing that.

>>9810240
>Increasing the price of something decreases demand. Fundamental economics, not an assumption.
Dumbfuck here must have had his thumb up his ass when they discussed necessity items in his economics class.

>>9810376
>at least one of your aliases
Such as?

>>9810204
See this might possibly, theoretically have the slightest inkling of merit if climate scientists had any serious political capital or lobbying power.

You do realize that corporations have the ability to make at least 10x the amount that politicians do just by denying climate and influencing policy.

Frankly, you suck as a skeptic, even the corporations can't deny climate change at this point.

https://www.wired.com/story/courtroom-climate-science/

>>9810377
>Dumbfuck here must have had his thumb up his ass when they discussed necessity items in his economics class.
Climate pseudoscientists aren't known to take anything in STEM departments

>>9810359
Yeah you are right, this guy >>9810383
>>9810384 just dodges questions and ad hominems everything he cant refute(which just so happens to be everything) and doesn't provide any substance with his posts.
Also
>reddit spacing

>>9810381
You troll conservative sites on facebook as well. Your name is quite fitting considering how vocal you are in your support of carbon taxes. Lets just leave it at that.

>>9810390
>Your name
Which is?

>>9810392
Why do you want me to say it so badly? My facebook presence is more or less non-existent so you won't figure who I am without major connections.

>>9810396
>Why do you want me to say it so badly?
To see if you're correct

>>9810398
You have that zombie profile pic, no?

>>9810400
>You have that zombie profile pic, no?
Which one?

>>9810403
hahaha it is you. lol. whatever its cool. I get a kick out of your trolling of right wingers on most issues. calling people liars kinda pisses me off though.

>>9810403
You are the epitome of a neoliberal though. I think your ideology is just as toxic as neoconservatives. I hope you mutually annihilate eachother for my entertainment desu.

>>9808237

You put a filter into space that blocks many invisible wavelengths from the sunlight. We wouldn't even notice any difference until the planet starts cooling down, and we could tear it down if it's somehow doing something bad.

>>9808646
If we build a space elevator to get rid of the waste I'd be for it but the waste really is a big issue.

climate change is only true if you assume it to be true

>>9810390
>There can't possibly be multiple people disagreeing with me on the internet, it must all be one person.

Also >>9810368, >>9810383, and >>9810384 isn't me, fucking retard.

>>9810345
Do you deny that global warming is occurring, caused by humans, and harmful?

>>9810484
>Do you deny that global warming is occurring, caused by humans, and harmful?
As I said, I'm a skeptic, not a denier.

>>9810372
>I just love how you automatically blame conservatives and republicans with the tone that I am either of them(i'm not).
I just love how you make up "tones" that aren't there and then argue against them. I was simply pointing out that your "argument" can be used to justify arbitrary and contradictory positions.

>in fact, I specifically said that politicizing climate change/science was a major part of the problem
Then you are a major part of the problem, since your entire argument is based on the idea that climate science is political and not scientific. You are politicizing the science.

>that makes people, especially the groups you generalize, more skeptical because no matter what they say you climb up on your high horse and act holier than thou. In addition to that, you completely sperged out and jumped beyond conclusions.
I'm sorry if you think that me asking you to show me the actual flaws in the science instead of baselessly speculating about conspiracies is "holier than thou." The only one sperging out is you since you've spent this entire post whining about nonsense and not supporting your position.

>False Equivalence
How so?

>No true scottsman
So skeptical people should not be skeptical of conspiracy theories?

>Also False Equivalence
So explain to me what the relevant difference is between saying climate scientists are doing it for the money and evolutionary biologists are doing it for the money.

>Projecting
Yes! Projecting your own argument back at you! I'm glad you finally got it.

>YOU are the reason people are skeptical of climate change policy because all the holier than thou faggots like yourself just love to wave their moral dicks around about how much smarter they are then everyone who disagrees with them.
I'm sorry that you feel me asking you to justify your position with logic and evidence is somehow an insult to your intelligence. But it appears from your failure to do so that you should take it as such.

>>9810377
Here's a question for you, since you are so well versed in economics: Why do gas stations lower their prices? Because they're being charitable?

>>9810406
You realize you've been talking to a troll ever since >>9810368 right?

>>9810489
So do you deny it or not? It's a yes or no question.

>>9810541
>So do you deny it or not?
As I said, I'm a skeptic, not a denier.

>>9810538
>a troll
What do you mean?

The hypothesis that CO2 is a harmless gas is compatible with all the evidence I have studied.

>>9810545
OK, so I'm going to assume you don't deny it. What are you skeptical of exactly? What isn't there enough evidence of to convince you?

>>9808237
>>9808263
The Navy figured out how to do this years ago. drawing it from the ocean or another body of water is a far more efficient solution. water is a natural CO2 sump and as long as the extraction isn't too aggressive in any particular area the concentration gradients aren't troublesome.

>www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA539765

i've been advocating for a closed loop carbon cycle for a while now. chemical fuels are a fantastic storage mediums.

>>9810553
Someone who responds to your posts without participating in the discussion attempting to trick you into wasting your time by responding.

See

>>/sci/thread/S9757795#p9774989
>>/sci/thread/S9798634#p9799057
>>/sci/thread/S9782664#p9784254

>>9810563
So have you studied any evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Did you guys know it's possible to passively harvest uranium from ocean water using special types of plastic ropes? That shit is crazy yo. It basically makes it so then nuclear fission power has a very low potential cost. We just have to be on top of having a good solution to the nuclear waste.

>>9810581
Why does pointing out that I'm not a "he" mean that I'm trying to trick anyone?

>>9810590
Because you're not who this post >>9810359
was talking about, but you responded as if you were.

>>9810595
>Because you're not who this post >>9810359
>was talking about
Who else would he/she have been talking about?

>>9810597

>>9810602
What is your image meant to imply? I doubt there's well known neoliberal trolls other than myself in this thread

>>9810604
Sure you are, guy.

>>9810606
>Sure you are, guy.
I'm not a "guy".

>>9810607
Good job retard you killed the thread. Now I'll have to wait for them to post this bullshit again. See you there.

>>9810626
>Good job retard you killed the thread.
What do you mean? There was no productive discussion before I entered the thread

>>9810538
I feed trolls all the time. It's fun.

>>9810097
Why yes, I have. Not an awfully lot of chemistry these days and lots of biotech and nano instead, but nothing too worrying What's your point?

>"CO2 is a weak acid so it wants to be with strong bases"
>Doesn't mention the poor solubility
Stopped reading there. Is it really that easy to get a professorship these days?

Only biosequesteration can save us
Free life

>>9810710
>Stopped rea
Stopped reading there

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar#Carbon_sink

>>9810579
This is one of the things that bugs me about crazy environmentalists. You ask them how they're going to turn solar power or wind power into baseload energy and they say "batteries." But batteries are crap. Batteries are for children's toys. For really excellent, long-lasting, high-powered energy storage, nothing beats liquid fuel. That seems like the place where most of our efforts should be directed.

Also, algal biofuels. Done right, they're carbon-neutral, I think.

>>9810845
https://skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-baseload-power.htm

>>9810189
>people don't want to have shittier lives

They don't need to, they just need to limit themselves to one child per couple

>>9810845
>nothing beats liquid fuel
Like water, you mean?

>>9810089
I'm not arguing with the potential viability of the tech, synthetic fuel (or pure hydrogen) will easily beat out batteries simply because it is lighter and easier/quicker to use. My assertion is that the tech will not become viable until we have a sustainable way of producing hydrogen, whether by brute forcing it with fuckloads of energy or coming up with some new method of production.

>>9810855
Not gonna happen.

This has been an interesting thread so far.

Let's say that we do, in fact, want to reverse climate change--that we have the will to do so. How would you begin to do that, based on the technology currently at our disposal, and what might be coming up in the near future?

>>9811467
The problem with hydrogen isn't production, it's storage. Solve the storage problem and get filthy rich!

>>9810264
You stopped reading 1 paragraph from the very bottom?

>>9810246
>show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists
I didn't realize everyone in STEM but outside of climatology was a climate scientist.

>>9810121
shut the fuck up american scum. if you were nuked 50yrs ago, the world would be good.

>>9811644
>I didn't realize everyone in STEM but outside of climatology was a climate scientist.
You stopped reading at the first sentence?

after learning about geo-engineering and the actual state of the science I lost all fear of climate change.

>>9810372
>False Equivalence
going from "if there was a conspiracy, they might say something like this" to "there is a conspiracy" actually is a hallmark of a conspiracy theorist. the equivalence is perfectly reasonable.
>No true scottsman
skeptics by definition are skeptical of claims that don't have supporting evidence. you might as well cry "no true scotsman" on someone for saying that a true pacifist wouldn't go around punching random people.
>Also False Equivalence
I raise you a non sequitur
you say that climatology isn't trustworthy because people are paid to study it, but don't apply the same scrutiny to literally every other branch of science
>Projecting
2quoque4me
>YOU are the reason people are skeptical of climate change policy because all the holier than thou faggots like yourself just love to wave their moral dicks around about how much smarter they are then everyone who disagrees with them.
now you're just throwing a tantrum. how dare educated people act like they know more than ignorant people! it's all their fault that people subscribe to delusions, because they dared to tell those people they were wrong!
>There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
>https://aphelis.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ASIMOV_1980_Cult_of_Ignorance.pdf

>>9810389
>oh no, sensible use of the carriage return for improved readability, my one weakness!
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>9810174
Why is pretending to have a more mild "skeptical" version of your actual opinion so popular amongst right-wingers? Everyone can tell when you say "hmm I am skeptical of the holocaust body count" IRL that you're the same person saying "HITLER DID NOTHING WRONG XDDD" online.

>>9810264
LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU I CAN'T HEAR YOU I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I

>>9812020
Nice post body, but I hope this image doesn't mean to imply that the first one is a good argument. That'd be a classic argumentum ad logicam.

>>9812016
See >>9810160

>>9808285
>lol use the bike dude lmao!

Fuck off

>>9812045
>Electric cars don't exist
I await your next non-argument.

>>9812047

Solar power is not enough for the modern society energy needs...I mean ni near enough...I mean no near to near enough...I mean no near to near to near enough...I mean...

Nuclear energy is the only way to go, but now we live into a gas-oil monopoly, so to introduce electric cars, powered by a centrilaced nuclear power grid seems something impossible in near future.

The bio-diesel idea is wrong and dumb aswell, since the fertile fields are way more useful producing food than fuel.

People ITT should be aware that carbon capture news is the new form of anti-climate action propaganda. It's meant to create false hope which can then be leveraged to keep the oil furnaces burning.

All of this is nothing more than vapourware. If it ever materialises it will have the same problem as any other solution to climate change. It would cost too much to be politically feasible.

>>9808237
Lets say we reduce emissions by half.

It won't mean shit because economists mean to double the population.

>>9812080
*per capita

>>9812080
Damn those evil economists, making people breed!

>>9812089
Economists think population growth is great. That's why they encourage people to move from areas with high fertility rates to areas with low fertility rates.

>>9812142
>Economists think population growth is great.
[citation needed]

>That's why they encourage people to move from areas with high fertility rates to areas with low fertility rates.
[citation needed]

>>9812142
Wrong.

>>9808237
>Climate denialists are now free to go deny something else
FTFY

>>9812260
>>9812266

Why do you people constantly feel the need to distort the truth or flat out lie about every little issue? Anyone can see that population growth is beneficial to the economy. Anyone can put the three words into google and find out how most economists feel about an issue. Anyone who listens to politicians talk knows how they feel about those issues. This silly little act of yours is getting quite tiresome. It's like you're not even trying anymore - picking any random issue to lie about now, even when the benefits of doing so are marginal at best.

https://www.google.ca/search?source=hp&ei=72okW6TGL-nD0PEPlNyWmAU&q=population+growth+economics&oq=population+growth+economics&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l5j0i22i30k1l5.650.4794.0.4922.27.16.0.11.11.0.122.1150.14j1.15.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.26.1252...0i131k1.0.dPIuwVGRkOI

https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2010/12/23/growth-is-good

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2016/12/08/economic-integration-and-the-four-freedoms

>>9812260
>>9812266

https://hbr.org/2017/04/why-mass-migration-is-good-for-long-term-economic-growth

I mean, there are literally so many links attesting to my claim its almost hilarious that someone would ask for a citation. It's first year economics. It's so fucking basic a child could understand it. I have to wonder if you actually don't even know anything about economics - instead specializing in marketing, or public relations.

>>9812142
>>9812260

Maybe instead of going around the internet posting [citation needed] literally everywhere, you should learn how to use google and check someones claim yourself.

Sitting there in a debate spouting literally nothing but [citation needed] time after time after time after time just makes you look like an autistic fuckwit.

>>9812260
>Your mother gave birth to you
>[citation needed]

Really?

>>9808237
The media should be banned from reporting on anything science related until they've demonstrated that they understand the underlying science.

SOME kind of scientific degree. Hell, a 20-question test to check and see if they're scientifically illiterate.

>>9812142
>Economists think population growth is great. That's why they encourage people to move from areas with high fertility rates to areas with low fertility rates.
Immigration from one area to another doesn't mean an increase in global population growth, so this is irrelevant to the claim that economists want to increase population growth. You might as well say that they are in favor of decreasing population growth since immigration from the host lowers the population of the host.

>>9812329
>Anyone can see that population growth is beneficial to the economy.
Anyone can see that population growth is correlated with less per capita income growth.

>https://www.google.ca/search?source=hp&ei=72okW6TGL-nD0PEPlNyWmAU&q=population+growth+economics&oq=population+growth+economics&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l5j0i22i30k1l5.650.4794.0.4922.27.16.0.11.11.0.122.1150.14j1.15.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.26.1252...0i131k1.0.dPIuwVGRkOI
The first hit says high growth is bad when income is low, and high growth is good when income is high. So how do you get that economists are saying more growth is good? The second hit explicitly says that economists currently believe rapid population growth is "an obstacle to robust economic growth."

>https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2010/12/23/growth-is-good
This is a reply to an economist that says population growth is bad. So I guess you agree that economists say population growth is bad.

>https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2016/12/08/economic-integration-and-the-four-freedoms
This just repeats the same irrelevancy about immigration discussed above.

>>9812333
>https://hbr.org/2017/04/why-mass-migration-is-good-for-long-term-economic-growth
Same irrelevancy about immigration.

You should make sure that your sources actually support your claims when you cite them.

>>9812338
[citation needed]

>>9812338
I did, his claim is false. See >>9812266 and his own sources >>9812329

>>9812399
>Anyone can see that population growth is correlated with less per capita income growth.
A huge percentage of the economy depends on construction, and a huge percentage of that depends on new developments. Without population growth the economy clearly takes a huge hit.

>Immigration from one area to another doesn't mean an increase in global population growth
When people move away, abandoning their jobs and place of residence, it frees up room for others to fill that void. It makes sense that this would easy pressures working against population growth. Essentially people moving around the world is just people filling new niches.

Let me guess? citation needed? I'm not sure why you're arguing with me on this... Are you against population growth?

>>9808237
>suck co2 out of the air
>panic about manmade ice age ensues
>climate alarmists have their jobs back again

>>9812266
Also, I'd like to know more about where this graph came from. What data is used? Is there no where no where in the world with negative population growth? The plot seems a little far fetched.
Tbh, I'm surprised and a little disappointed that someone who always posts "[citation needed]", would post an unsourced plot like that... A little hypocritical don't you think?

>>9812266
Also, I'd like to know more about where this graph came from. What data is used? Is there no where in the world with negative population growth? The plot seems a little far fetched.
Tbh, I'm surprised and a little disappointed that someone who always posts "[citation needed]", would post an unsourced plot like that... A little hypocritical don't you think?

>>9812412
>A huge percentage of the economy depends on construction, and a huge percentage of that depends on new developments. Without population growth the economy clearly takes a huge hit.
And yet population growth is negatively correlated with economic growth. So your argument is either false or irrelevant.

>When people move away, abandoning their jobs and place of residence, it frees up room for others to fill that void.
Global population growth has been decreasing since the 1960s while international immigration has been increasing, so again your argument is either false or irrelevant.

>I'm not sure why you're arguing with me on this...
Because you're clearly wrong. I don't see why you are attempting to argue this when the data has already answered the question: >>9812266

>Are you against population growth?
I have no opinion on it. I'm for economic growth. Mitigating climate change is good for economic growth in the long term.

>>9812417
>manmade ice age ensues
We are already in an ice age, dunce. Humans evolved in and have always lived in the current ice age, rapidly warming out of it is a bad idea.

>>9812433
>Also, I'd like to know more about where this graph came from.
It came from the second hit in your google search, perhaps you should read your own link before posting? A little hypocritical don't you think?

>>9812435
>And yet population growth is negatively correlated with economic growth.
But that does not make sense. More people = more spending = more gdp. Are you actually arguing with that basic arithmetic?
According to some numbers I found 4% of US GDP was from construction in 2010.

When people move away, abandoning their jobs and place of residence, it frees up room for others to fill that void.
There is nothing false about this. It's basic common sense. A farmer abandons his land for better unused land somewhere else. It doesn't suddenly make the land he was on previously worthless, so someone else with worse land will move in an take over. It's a domino affect, where a whole chain of people move onto better land, and GDP grows.

> I'm for economic growth.
Then you're for population growth. A growing number of people = growing spending on the necessities of life = growing GDP.

Please don't try and argue with basic arithmetic.

>>9812453
>But that does not make sense.
Reality does not care about what you think makes sense. When reality and common sense disagree, common sense is worthless. If you want to be comforted by some justification, think of it this way: higher population growth means larger families, which means less saving and investment from each family and less resources invested per child in creating their economic potential. Is this the reason why we see this correlation? Who knows, but the fact is the correlation exists.

>Then you're for population growth. A growing number of people = growing spending on the necessities of life = growing GDP.
Growing GDP does not mean the economy is better. If population grows faster than GDP then the economy is actually worse. No one cares about that the economy is getting absolutely bigger if everyone is getting poorer.

Please don't try to argue against reality, you automatically lose every time.

>>9812462
>Growing GDP does not mean the economy is better.

You just said you're in favour of economic growth? How is economic growth defined? As far as I'm aware, the only measure of economic growth is via GDP.

>>9812462
>Growing GDP does not mean the economy is better.

You just said you're in favour of economic growth... How is economic growth defined? As far as I'm aware, the only measure of economic growth is via GDP.

>>9812467
>You just said you're in favour of economic growth... How is economic growth defined?
Growth in GDP per capita.

>>9812470
Ok.

Personally, I think it would be nice if more of the numbers put out by government were per capita numbers.

>>9812439
We've always done better in warmer periods.

>>9812552
We and the ecosystem we rely on has never experienced warming this fast. Your argument is like saying obesity is fine since eating is good for you.

>>9812556
>never experienced warming this fast
Yeah...
>obesity
The discovery of flavor chemicals was a mistake. Also bad comparison.

>>9810433
fuck no do you know how much space there is on this planet

>>9812569
Yeah...

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/486.full

>>9812076
>It would cost too much to be politically feasible.

lol that'll change real quick once Miami sinks into the sea. "Politically feasible" means nothing, since it's changing all the time.

>>9810586
>We just have to be on top of having a good solution to the nuclear waste.
is that even a real problem? Getting the idea across to people 1000 years in the future after civilizational collapse is unnecessary IMO, because either they're smart enough to understand radiation, or they're undeveloped enough to not contaminate things too much before they start dropping like flies and abandoning the cursed material

>>9810264
How hard can you get BTFO lmao

>>9810433
We have a giant hole in a mountain in Nevada that is designed for the sole purpose of housing the waste. We don't use it because fucking hippies.

>>9808237
>misleading title because you arent turning air into gasoline
>implying anyone will pay this guy, or anyone, the billions upon billions it would take to even dent problem

why are right wingers so brain damaged when it comes to scientific literacy?

>>9812783
>How hard can you get BTFO lmao
>>9812026
>LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU I CAN'T HEAR YOU I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I
The scientific method is a popscience fairytale we tell children and uneducated adults how science works. People actually think a scientist is some guy in a lab applying "the method" like a mechanical procedure until results fall out! But this is very naive of course. Go learn epistemology and philosophy of science.

>>9811644
>You stopped reading 1 paragraph from the very bottom?
I didn't read anything between the first phrase and that endnote

>>9808237
This is why the entire "climate change" "debate" can't be had anymore. The alarmists are un-teachable.

>>9814118
See >>9810160

>>9812958
It's the same level of retardation as people who posit that just because plants turn CO2 into O2 that more CO2 emissions from humans are good for agriculture.

>>9813050
>The scientific method is a popscience fairytale we tell children and uneducated adults how science works.
It's a broad approximation of how actual scientific research is generally done. Which is completely appropriate for a webpage intended to educate the general public.

>>9812033
depends on how you parse it.
"this conclusion is wrong" could mean "it's wrong to draw this conclusion based on the evidence available" or "this conclusion is factually false".
it's perfectly reasonable to say that the statement "this object is green, therefore it is an apple" is wrong, even if the object does happen to be an apple.
but now I'm getting into brain-numbing levels of pedantry.

>>9813050
No amount of deflection can erase the observable fact that you are an illiterate cretin who got absolutely roasted.

>>9814558
>No amount of deflection can erase the observable fact that you are an illiterate cretin who got absolutely roasted.
Ironic, since believing in 'the scientific method' is a hallmark of illiterate cretins

>>9808285
>nobody will agree to this
Are you effectively proposing an evironmental facist imperium that turns entire countries into mass starvation camps?
:D

>>9808285
Not using nuclear

Yeah right undergrad

>>9810148
We dug ourselves into this energy hole, we’ll dig ourselves out using more energy. But the energy we use to dig ourselves out is cleaner.

>>9808285
Just replace your battery with wind turbines and nuclear power plants and you've got yourself a pretty good idea.

>>9810121
>>9810295
>This is your brain on orange demagogue

>>9808658
>>9810433
>Implying there isn't toxic waste in China from mining rare earth elements for wind turbine generators or that solar energy doesn't have its own issue with toxic chemicals used to manufacture photovoltaic cells or their own disposal problems.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution

https://asia.nikkei.com/Tech-Science/Tech/Japan-tries-to-chip-away-at-mountain-of-disused-solar-panels?page=2

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2104162/chinas-ageing-solar-panels-are-going-be-big-environmental-problem

From http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-headed-for-a-solar-waste-crisis

"If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (52 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km)."

Oh and the dangers of nuclear power has been wildly exaggerated as nuclear's mortality rate per energy produced is compatible to solar and wind.

From https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/update-of-death-per-terawatt-hour-by.html

Face it, it's only faggot hippie fearmongering and Big Oil working behind the scenes to promote said fearmongering that has stop nuclear from being our primary source of energy.

>>9808263

What if you now take that gasoline and throw it back to the sea?

Checkmate changeists

>>9811629
I honestly believe production is a bigger issue than storage, but that is largely because I was unaware that there was one.
What is the issue with storage of hydrogen gas and are there any potential solutions being explored?
Is it an issue specific to hydrogen itself or something more general like the storing of gases?

>>9818519
>What is the issue with storage of hydrogen gas
It goes boom.
Google the hindenburg.

>>9818521
Hydrogen is less explosive than Petroleum and we can store that just fine.
In fact I think this might be what the other guy actually meant by a storage problem, because of its lower energy density by volume you need a larger tank in your car to achieve the same range.

>>9810484
>Implying "climate denier" or "science denier" isn't a cheap ad hominem attack.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/16/new-form-climate-denialism-dont-celebrate-yet-cop-21

When even James Hansen, who is one of the biggest supporter of the theory of anthropogenic global warming could be labeled a climate changer denier for supporting nuclear power, you know the phrase "climate change denier" is just another word for "shame".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdfhF6Ouolg

>>9818531
no. hydrogen is significantly more explosive than petroleum.
Also, its a gas, so it would be stored under very high pressure - so even if it wasn't crazy flammable it would still be explosive.

I even googled it for you just to make sure I wasn't full of shit. Here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319915011829

>>9818537
I'm willing to accept this as the case, since it explains why NASA prefers to use hydrogen as rocket fuel at least.
But storing an explosive gas is still far less of a problem than hydrogens poor energy density by volume. All else being equal, you will need a heavier tank (either because it is larger in order to store more hydrogen or stronger to hold it at a greater pressure) to store the same amount of energy as a tank of gasoline. This creates sever problems for the use of hydrogen on its own as a fuel source for automobiles, though not for the production of synthetic fuels using sustainable sourced hydrogen - as the end product of that process is still energy dense hydrocarbons.
Ether way, I still maintain my original assertion that production, not storage of hydrogen is the most important factor holding back the development of this technology. If we stick with synthetic fuels storage becomes a non issue, since effective industrial scale storage of hydrogen has been around for decades.

>>9818551
>my original assertion that production, not storage of hydrogen is the most important factor

I really have no opinion on it either way. Everything else (production/storage/whatever) is energy intensive as fuck. That's why fossils are used and every thing else isn't.

One thing that's great about fossils is that the production side of it and the energy that requires has already been done over the last millions of years. Storage too, in a way...

>>9818551
by the way I'm not saying fossils are good or bad. Everything has its benefits and drawbacks. As the human race is starting to discover.

>>9818559
Indeed.
Thanks for letting me know about the storage issues - I had no idea about they were a thing up until now but I'll be keeping them in mind from here on out, even if I dont think they merit as much consideration as the production side of things.

>>9815165
The irony is you are arguing with scientists and more scientifically literate people than you in this thread about what constitutes the scientific method. The irony is that your strawman argument about the scientific method has nothing to do with you being completely wrong on the topic of scientific consensus concerning climate change. I say you are illiterate because you didnt or cant read the relevant literature.

>>9818565
np. good questions get me learning new things as well.

>>9818551

>I'm willing to accept this as the case, since it explains why NASA prefers to use hydrogen as rocket fuel at least.

SpaceX is moving away from hydrogen in part because it is such a pain in the ass to store and handle. It is not a very practical fuel.

>>9818532
>ad hominem attack
It's describing your position in this debate, it has nothing to do with ad hominem.

>When even James Hansen, who is one of the biggest supporter of the theory of anthropogenic global warming could be labeled a climate changer denier for supporting nuclear power, you know the phrase "climate change denier" is just another word for "shame".
This is a strawman argument. I did not call James Hansen a climate change denier, nor did I say anything about nuclear power. Now please answer the question: do you deny that global warming is occurring, caused by humans, and harmful? It's a simple yes or no question, so I don't see why you are avoiding it.

Did anyone watch First Reformed? Was the science accurate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCF5Y8dQpR4

>>9819018
I actually saw this a while ago at a film festival, with a Q and A with the director afterwards. The climate stuff is very metaphorical (as is everything in the film), basically signifying bodily sin and the impurity of the world before heaven.

>>9818830
>Now please answer the question: do you deny that global warming is occurring, caused by humans, and harmful?
Yes.

>>9819103
Brainlets who could barely graduate talking about studies they can't read

>>9819132
>Brainlets who could barely graduate talking about studies they can't read
I have a PhD.

there's an absence of evidence (which is evidence of absence) that humans are warming the earth

>>9819103
OK, so you're a global warming denier. Wow, was that so hard? No, you're not a "skeptic," because skeptics follow the evidence, not baseless conspiracy theories and political convenience.

>>9819159
>OK, so you're a global warming denier.
No, I'm a skeptic.

>>9819157
>absence of evidence = evidence of absence
I have no evidence that you're a faggot

>>9819162
>I have no evidence that you're a faggot
Which is evidence that I'm not a faggot.

>>9819157
It's directly observable that humans are rapidly increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and that this increase causes rapid warming.

>>9819160
So what are you skeptical of and why?

>>9819169
>So what are you skeptical of and why?
that global warming is occurring, caused by humans, and harmful, because there's an absence of evidence

>>9819165
right, so there was an inconsistency somewhere

>>9819167
do we know how much the natural level of CO2 has increased or how rapid of warming that increase causes?

>>9819176
There is a massive amount of evidence. Go look at the IPCC's reports. Why do you think there is an absence of evidence?

>>9819182
>do we know how much the natural level of CO2 has increased
There are several methods that all say the same thing, natural sources and sinks are absorbing more than they emit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Anthropogenic_CO2_emissions

>how rapid of warming that increase causes?
See https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6.html

>>9819157
>>9819176
>ignore all the evidence that disagrees with your opinions
>claim there's an absence of evidence

never change, deniers

>>9818830
>It's describing your position in this debate, it has nothing to do with ad hominem.

And I'm sure calling someone a "rape apologist" for wanting to protect the right of due process and the presumption of innocence for someone accused of rape is legitimate too.

Also, when you call someone a climate change denier, you're accusing them of believing the Earth's climate has remain constant over its entire existence and that they don't believe even in the Ice Age. So, it's not even an accurate term even putting aside its loaded meaning.

>This is a strawman argument. I did not call James Hansen a climate change denier, nor did I say anything about nuclear power.

Your accusation is the real strawman argument. I never said you accused James Hansen of not believing in the Ice Age. I did point out the label is just a loaded term and an ad hominem and was being abused by people who would rather name and shame than make evidence-based argument. And that's exactly what that term has devolved into with people even going so far as to compare people skeptical of the accuracy of climate models to holocaust deniers. Because a disagreement over what the average global temperature will be a century from now is the moral equivalent to being an apologist for a genocidal dictator.

>Now please answer the question

Fuck your false dilemma and strawman argument. I don't know anyone in this debate who denies that the climate changes over time or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The argument has always been about the accuracy of computer models of the climate and the extent human beings affect it from having no effect at all, or having a secondary effect with nature having a greater effect on it, or to all changes in climate being human influenced. By your logic, a scientist who said that humans has a partial effect on the climate or a scientist that says *some* of the climate models are wrong are climate change deniers (you're with us or you're with the terrorists).

>>9819167
>It's directly observable that humans are rapidly increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere

I don't know any climate model skeptics that deny this.

>and that this increase causes rapid warming

Or the climate is a complex system and that it's questionable that current computer models can accuracy predict changes in the average global temperature and what it's effects on the climate will be.

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/22/us/study-finds-warming-trend-that-could-raise-sea-levels.html

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL073308

>>9819432
>And I'm sure calling someone a "rape apologist" for wanting to protect the right of due process and the presumption of innocence for someone accused of rape is legitimate too.
No a rape apologist would be someone who defends rape, just as a global warming denier is someone who denies the theory of global warming. You're simply making a false equivalence.

>Also, when you call someone a climate change denier, you're accusing them of believing the Earth's climate has remain constant over its entire existence and that they don't believe even in the Ice Age.
Where did I accuse anyone of that? Don't try to put words in my mouth. The term climate change denier has a specific meaning that is widely known and that is not it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

>Your accusation is the real strawman argument.
You already admitted you deny global warming, so it's clearly not a strawman argument.

>I did point out the label is just a loaded term and an ad hominem and was being abused by people who would rather name and shame than make evidence-based argument.
And I did point out how it's not an ad hominem. That a description of your argument has negative connotations does not make it ad hominem. I did not attack your character, I described your position in this discussion. And I did make an evidence based argument, you just completely failed to respond to it and have only responded to being called a denier. Make sure before posting these canned responses that they actually apply to the situation you are "arguing" in.

>And that's exactly what that term has devolved into with people even going so far as to compare people skeptical of the accuracy of climate models to holocaust deniers.
Holocaust denier is a very offensive term, the correct term is Holocaust skeptic. This is an ad hominem attack since it equates Holocaust skeptics with people suffering from a psychological disorder.

>>9819432
>Because a disagreement over what the average global temperature will be a century from now is the moral equivalent to being an apologist for a genocidal dictator.
Pointing out that you are denying scientific facts about climate change doesn't imply you are morally equivalent to some other kind of denier. This is another strawman.

>Fuck your false dilemma and strawman argument. I don't know anyone in this debate who denies that the climate changes over time or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
That's not what I asked though. Do you not see the massive irony of accusing me of making a strawman and then completely misrepresenting the question I asked in the very next sentence?

>The argument has always been about the accuracy of computer models of the climate and the extent human beings affect it from having no effect at all, or having a secondary effect with nature having a greater effect on it, or to all changes in climate being human influenced.
You asked me what scientists outside of climatology agree with the models. I gave you a page listing all the major scientific organizations that have endorsed the conclusions resulting from climate theory and models. You did not respond. I have also discussed several times how we know humans are the primary cause and not natural variation. You did not respond to that either. The ball is in your court.

>By your logic, a scientist who said that humans has a partial effect on the climate or a scientist that says *some* of the climate models are wrong are climate change deniers (you're with us or you're with the terrorists).
No, neither of those claims contradict the current well established climate theory. Humans do only have a partial effect on the climate and all models (not just in climatology) are wrong. The relevant claims would be that humans are not the primary cause of the change in the climate seen since the industrial revolution, and that the climate models are too wrong to be useful.

>>9819458
>Or the climate is a complex system and that it's questionable that current computer models can accuracy predict changes in the average global temperature and what it's effects on the climate will be.
What makes you think the current models aren't accurate? Have you actually looked at them?

>>9819458
The post I was responding to claimed that there is an absence of evidence that humans are warming the Earth. Do you disagree?

>>9808237
>climate alarmists
>virtue signal
All I needed to know to confirm you are a retard. Opinion discarded. Into the trash can it goes.

>>9819169
i know that climatologists don't have a full grasp on the subject matter because there aren't a diverse set of implementable (not necessarily practical) solutions to the problem. the only solution that doesn't have people wringing their hands is curbing hydrocarbon use. atmospheric aerosol injections? nope, apparently we know enough about change to say humans are causing it, but not enough to predict what would happen if we put some OTHER STUFF into the atmosphere.

the excuses for disregarding any other similarly scaled geo-engineering solutions are the same. more saliently, the global warming problem is obviously not as pressing as people make it out to be otherwise previously unconsiderable energy options (IE Nuclear or Hydro) would be brought to the table.

when the guys in labcoats get back to me with more than "gimme sum money" then maybe i'll hear them out.

>>9819458
>>and that this increase causes rapid warming
>Or the climate is a complex system and that it's questionable that current computer models can accuracy predict changes in the average global temperature and what it's effects on the climate will be.
We don't need computer models for that. The increase in downward radiation on the bands CO2 emits on is directly observable.
For example: http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

>>9819613
>climatologists don't have a full grasp on the subject matter because there aren't a diverse set of implementable solutions to the problem.
It's not climatologists' job to generate solutions to AGW. That's a completely different area of study.

>the only solution that doesn't have people wringing their hands is curbing hydrocarbon use
No shit. If doing X causes problem Y, the obvious response to Y is to stop doing X.

>atmospheric aerosol injections? nope
There's a tonne of research into aerosol injection. It's disliked because:
a) It doesn't address the problem, only some of the symptoms, and
b) It brings a bunch of potentially ugly side effects of its own.

>apparently we know enough about change to say humans are causing it, but not enough to predict what would happen if we put some OTHER STUFF into the atmosphere
How is that surprising?
We have actual empirical data for what we're doing to the climate now. Any discussion about the effects of injecting other things is going to be much more speculative.

>the global warming problem is obviously not as pressing as people make it out to be otherwise previously unconsiderable energy options (IE Nuclear or Hydro) would be brought to the table.
That doesn't logically follow: It's possible to worry about more than one thing at once. And there IS an increased amount of interest in hydro and nuclear.

>when the guys in labcoats get back to me with more than "gimme sum money" then maybe i'll hear them out.
You won't listen unless they agree with you.

>>9819639
while i appreciate you picking apart that example i provided to you, thats all it was. an example. all of the other discussions about solutions of a similar scale (not scope) end in the same fashion, a dead lock of ignorance because nobody really knows how our climate system will respond.

>It's not climatologists' job to generate solutions to AGW. That's a completely different area of study.

do i really have to use some generic term like "climate science guy" to get my point across? while its not in that specific climatologists scope to create solutions, i'm sure there is somebody on that guys team who owns that tasking. these people don't work alone or in a bubble.

>That doesn't logically follow: It's possible to worry about more than one thing at once.

its called having priorities and obviously the mitigating the impact to localized ecosystems surrounding proposed power plants is more important than mitigating the global impact of climate change. if climate change was a priority, which it isn't, these projects would be getting rubber stamped.

>>9819656
>all of the other discussions about solutions of a similar scale (not scope) end in the same fashion, a dead lock of ignorance because nobody really knows how our climate system will respond.
Wrong, we know what the climate will be like with reduced CO2 emissions.

You have already been given a solution, you just don't want to accept it.

>its called having priorities and obviously the mitigating the impact to localized ecosystems surrounding proposed power plants is more important than mitigating the global impact of climate change.
Based on what?

>if climate change was a priority, which it isn't, these projects would be getting rubber stamped.
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You deny climate change is a problem because we aren't doing anything about it, and we aren't doing anything about it because you deny it's a problem. In reality, there is a massive amount of evidence showing that it is a problem and we know what should be done about it, but because people like you are in denial about those facts, nothing gets done. You know you have no argument, you're not a skeptic.

>>9819656
>all of the other discussions about solutions of a similar scale (not scope) end in the same fashion
Not really. Most Geo-engineering approaches are considered to be either be absurdly unaffordable, or have severe side effects. Sulfate injection is probably the least worst.

> a dead lock of ignorance because nobody really knows how our climate system will respond.
Predicting how the climate will react to completely unprecedented events is hard. I'm not aware of any deadlock.

>while its not in that specific climatologists scope to create solutions, i'm sure there is somebody on that guys team who owns that tasking. these people don't work alone or in a bubble.
People have proposed a bunch of different ideas: Carbon capture and storage, Extracting CO2 for the atmosphere (biologically and artificially), large-scale efficacy improvements, primitivism, renewables with grid storage, advanced nuclear power, adaptation and mitigation, solar shades, etc...
Some of those ideas will work, but most are terrible. I'm not entirely sure what you're expecting?

>its called having priorities and obviously the mitigating the impact to localized ecosystems surrounding proposed power plants is more important than mitigating the global impact of climate change. if climate change was a priority, which it isn't, these projects would be getting rubber stamped.
Different people have difference concerns and priorities. Again, I don't understand what you're expecting.

>>9819531
>No a rape apologist would be someone who defends rape, just as a global warming denier is someone who denies the theory of global warming.

Oh now you people are going back to using the term global warming again. Whatever line is convenient for you.

>The term climate change denier has a specific meaning that is widely known and that is not it

The term "climate change denier" itself is a misnomer and a distortion of the facts. Also, the term "climate change" is vague and can be applied to any condition the climate is in.

"You already admitted you deny global warming"

I never made any claim for or against the theory.

>>9819103
Unfortunately, someone else posted that reply. I never gave an answer on this subject one way or another because of the extreme levels of faggotry on both sides.

>I did not attack your character, I described your position in this discussion.

But then you posted this.

>Holocaust denier is a very offensive term, the correct term is Holocaust skeptic. This is an ad hominem attack since it equates Holocaust skeptics with people suffering from a psychological disorder.

So you do believe there's a moral equivalent between a disagreement over the average global temperature one hundred years from now and being an apologist for a dictator that murdered millions of people.

So yeah, fuck you too.

>Pointing out that you are denying scientific facts about climate change doesn't imply you are morally equivalent to some other kind of denier.

A computer model is not a scientific fact.

>Do you not see the massive irony of accusing me of making a strawman and then completely misrepresenting the question I asked in the very next sentence?

You call people who questions the accuracy of a computer simulation of the climate anti-science. So, no it isn't a strawman.

>>9819554
>You asked me what scientists outside of climatology agree with the models. I gave you a page listing all the major scientific organizations that have endorsed the conclusions resulting from climate theory and models. You did not respond.

You got me confused with some other anon.

>The relevant claims would be that humans are not the primary cause of the change in the climate seen since the industrial revolution, and that the climate models are too wrong to be useful.


https://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/22/us/study-finds-warming-trend-that-could-raise-sea-levels.html

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL073308

The ones predicting sea levels weren't too useful.

Also a climate model that makes predictions that can't be confirmed for decades, at least, wouldn't be so bad if basing our energy policy on those models wouldn't utterly fuck up our economy (and for nothing if they are wrong), especially when the same people railing against Big Oil also rail against nuclear power, though, to be fair, there are at least some people on the global warming side that are serious about reducing CO2 emissions and actually puts forth viable alternatives like nuclear power.

But the worst predictions are those born from political faggotry.

From https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/17/tony-abbott-is-a-climate-change-villain-says-canadian-author-naomi-klein:

"Klein said climate change would exacerbate social problems such as racism and inequality, predicting Australia would become “meaner” as it gets hotter.

“You see that in Australia where the treatment of migrants is a profound moral crisis,” she said. “It’s clear that as sea levels rise that this mean streak and open racism is going to become more extreme – climate change is an accelerant to all those other issues.”"

According to Naomi Klein, CO2 emissions will make people more racist because...reasons.

>>9819554
And unfortunately, Naomi Klein isn't the only one hopping on the global warming hype train for her political agenda.


You can't tell me that some people are coattailing this issue for their own agenda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeBeq0i03bg

This is the same Bill Nye that has attacked nuclear power.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euDlmRwjICY

So, what the fuck does communism has to do with stopping the Earth from warming? Nothing. And if your side wants to persuade the skeptical public, do something about people like Klein and Nye who sees global warming as an excuse to force their political agenda onto an unwilling populace.

>>9819810
>Oh now you people are going back to using the term global warming again. Whatever line is convenient for you.
I know it must be very hard for you to keep track of two different but related phrases, but do try.

>The term "climate change denier" itself is a misnomer and a distortion of the facts.
How so?

>Also, the term "climate change" is vague and can be applied to any condition the climate is in.
How about the current condition the climate is in, aka global warming? What exactly is vague about how I used the term? What requires clarification for you?

>I never made any claim for or against the theory.
So you have an opinion on the theory that you won't reveal, or are you undecided? If you have an opinion, I bet it's that you deny the theory. If you are undecided, what evidence do you need to make a decision?

>So you do believe there's a moral equivalent between a disagreement over the average global temperature one hundred years from now and being an apologist for a dictator that murdered millions of people.
Where did I say or imply that there's a moral equivalence? Because I parodied your argument? Saying that A and B share some property does not mean they also share whatever property is most convenient for you to get offended by. You're like an SJW.

>A computer model is not a scientific fact.
Climate models are based on scientific facts. It is a scientific fact that continued CO2 emissions will warm the Earth. How accurate do the models have to be before you admit this? I doubt you could tell me since you refuse to even reveal why you think the models are inaccurate. Admit it: you haven't looked at the models, this is just an excuse for you to deny that action needs to be taken. You aren't a skeptic because you don't even know what you're "skeptical" of.

>>9819577

>>9819849
>The ones predicting sea levels weren't too useful.
Yes they were. Revising an estimate doesn't mean the old estimate was worthless. Incremental improvements are a pretty standard part of scientific progress.

>Also a climate model that makes predictions that can't be confirmed for decades, at least, wouldn't be so bad if basing our energy policy on those models wouldn't utterly fuck up our economy (and for nothing if they are wrong),
I think you're confused about the role of climate models in climatology. We can detect and measure the impact of human emissions on the climate without needed models.
Also, the models aren't all new. Models in the past have done pretty well at predicting changes in the climate (after considering unpredictable things, like changes in emissions), and current models are based on knowledge gained from those older models.

>According to Naomi Klein, CO2 emissions will make people more racist because...reasons.
Who gives a fuck?
Naomi Klein isn't a climatologist. Tony Abbot isn't a climatologist. Why do you think the opinions of random chuckfucks are representative of the state of scientific understanding?
Do you ask the person who delivers you pizza about particle physics?

>>9819855
>You can't tell me that some people are coattailing this issue for their own agenda.
So fucking what? That doesn't affect whether or not it's actually TRUE.
Do you get your understanding of every other subject from the opinions of random people on TV?

>And if your side wants to persuade the skeptical public, do something about people like Klein and Nye who sees global warming as an excuse to force their political agenda onto an unwilling populace.
"My side" isn't a clubhouse with a membership list - It's the set of all people who aren't in denial about what modern science says.

>>9819863
Stop posting that terrible graph in every damn thread.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/

>>9819860
>I know it must be very hard for you to keep track of two different but related phrases, but do try.

You can't cover up your intellectual dishonesty by insulting someone for pointing it out.

>How so?

Point out the person who is skeptical of the accuracy of climate models that doesn't believe in the Ice Age.

>How about the current condition the climate is in, aka global warming? What exactly is vague about how I used the term?

The term "climate change" is vague in and of itself. Global warming implies the earth is getting warming. "Climate change" is vague enough that any bad weather becomes anecdotal evidence. Record heat waves is evidence for climate changes just like blizzards and record cold is proof of climate change. Too much rain is climate change and too little rain is also climate change. Some models do predict these changes in the climate since there are so many different models predicting different things someone can find one that is right, at least for that one particular instant before switching to another climate model. Any false prophet can be right if he predicts a hundred different events and cherrypicks the guess that came closest.

>>9819810
>You call people who questions the accuracy of a computer simulation of the climate anti-science. So, no it isn't a strawman.
Yes, you are anti-science if you "ask questions" while not wanting to find out the answer. That is essentially the antithesis of science.

And how does this even imply that what you wrote is not a strawman? You wrote, "I don't know anyone in this debate who denies that the climate changes over time or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas," when what I asked was "do you deny that global warming is occurring, caused by humans, and harmful?" In other words, it's a strawman.

>>9819849
>The ones predicting sea levels weren't too useful.
I don't see a model or currently testable prediction in either link, and sea level rise has been accelerating, so you'll have to explain what you're babbling about.

>Also a climate model that makes predictions that can't be confirmed for decades, at least, wouldn't be so bad if basing our energy policy on those models wouldn't utterly fuck up our economy (and for nothing if they are wrong), especially when the same people railing against Big Oil also rail against nuclear power, though, to be fair, there are at least some people on the global warming side that are serious about reducing CO2 emissions and actually puts forth viable alternatives like nuclear power.
There are models that have been running for decades and are accurate, so what exactly is your objection? You have it completely backwards. Ignoring the best evidence we have and allowing global warming to occur unmitigated is what will do the most damage to the economy. Maximizing our expected value by mitigating global warming is the rational, risk-reducing choice.

>MUH NAOMI KLEIN
>MUH BILL NYE
I could bring out a parade of retarded celebrity deniers but I won't, since unlike you I have actual evidence instead of guilt by false association. The intellectual vacuousness of your position forces you do these things, so I forgive you.

>>9819860
>Climate models are based on scientific facts. It is a scientific fact that continued CO2 emissions will warm the Earth. How accurate do the models have to be before you admit this? I doubt you could tell me since you refuse to even reveal why you think the models are inaccurate. Admit it: you haven't looked at the models, this is just an excuse for you to deny that action needs to be taken. You aren't a skeptic because you don't even know what you're "skeptical" of.

From http://theconversation.com/climate-change-has-changed-the-way-i-think-about-science-heres-why-82314

"Falsifiability is the idea that an assertion can be shown to be false by an experiment or an observation, and is critical to distinctions between “true science” and “pseudoscience”.

Climate models are important and complex tools for understanding the climate system. Are climate models falsifiable? Are they science? A test of falsifiability requires a model test or climate observation that shows global warming caused by increased human-produced greenhouse gases is untrue. It is difficult to propose a test of climate models in advance that is falsifiable."

This is coming from a climate "scientist".

https://theconversation.com/profiles/sophie-lewis-22297

"Making climate models falsifiable is just too hard. You'll just have to take my word that the models are accurate."

>>9819897
>"Stop posting evidence debunking our bullshit"

>>9819706
>Different people have difference concerns and priorities. Again, I don't understand what you're expecting.

well then, friend, we have no argument. i simply prioritize my money over climate change.

>>9819917
>You can't cover up your intellectual dishonesty by insulting someone for pointing it out.
How exactly was my use of global warming and climate change dishonest? You are just desperately grasping at straws at this point, and I doubt you'll answer.

>Point out the person who is skeptical of the accuracy of climate models that doesn't believe in the Ice Age.
When did I say anyone doesn't believe in the ice age? Also, this is one of my biggest pet peeves, you do realize that we are still in an ice age right? Humans evolved in and have always lived in the current ice age that has lasted about 2.6 million years.

>The term "climate change" is vague in and of itself.
No it's not. Most of the time when someone mentions climate change, they are talking about current climate change, which is global warming. You willfully ignoring context does not make your opponent dishonest, it makes you dishonest.

>"Climate change" is vague enough that any bad weather becomes anecdotal evidence.
I don't think any climatologist would make the mistake of confusing weather for climate. You seem to be projecting your ignorance onto others.

>Record heat waves is evidence for climate changes just like blizzards and record cold is proof of climate change.
Says who? Try being skeptical for once and actually look at what scientists are saying instead of swallowing these long debunked denier talking points.

>Some models do predict these changes in the climate since there are so many different models predicting different things someone can find one that is right, at least for that one particular instant before switching to another climate model.
Which models were cited as predicting these things and which models don't predict them? Can you be more specific or are you just making up things that sound right to you? So far you have only posted a single graph describing a model, but that graph is highly misleading.

>>9819929
Climate models are unnecessary in proving man made climate change.

>>9819933
His link, which you obviously failed to read seeing as how you posted only 17 minutes apart. Proves your graph to be unadulterated horseshit

But go ahead. Keep posting it if it pleases you. It easily shows how dishonest you are.

>>9819929
I'm confused, first you said the climate models are not accurate, then when I ask you for how accurate they would need to be for you to accept them, you link me to someone saying they are unfalsifiable. So are you changing your argument to be that climate models are always accurate?

As to the article, I don't think the author is describing falsifiability correctly. You don't need to disprove basic climatology to falsify a climate model. Models are already automatically falsified, otherwise they would not be models, they would be laws or theories, which are what need to be falsifiable. Models on the other hand are either accurate or inaccurate. Showing that a model is inaccurate is the equivalent of falsifying it. Which brings us back to my question: How accurate do the models need to be before you accept them?

who cares, humans deserve to die

>>9819929
>Are climate models falsifiable?
The article you linked to has a PDF that explains, in great detail, what she actually means by that. Here's a directly link:
http://climate.calcommons.org/sites/default/files/Hargreaves2014.pdf
tldr: She's not saying we can't evaluate the accuracy of climate models. She's saying that a complete rejection of current GCMs would take ~100 years, but there are instead (weaker) methods of evaluating them.

>"Making climate models falsifiable is just too hard. You'll just have to take my word that the models are accurate."
Holy fucking shit.
Did you expect nobody to even LOOK at the links you posted?

>>9819933
>"Stop posting evidence debunking our bullshit"
Did you miss the link I posted, where Gavin Schmidt explained in detail why that graph was misleading?
And if so, how? That link was >50% of my post.

>>9819918
>I don't see a model or currently testable prediction in either link, and sea level rise has been accelerating, so you'll have to explain what you're babbling about.

From http://science.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957

That is the original source material. If you have a problem with it, then don't bother asking for another source.

"I could bring out a parade of retarded celebrity deniers but I won't, since unlike you I have actual evidence instead of guilt by false association."

And just how many nuclear power plants have opened in the US since the 1980's? Oh and bet you can link me to official statements from Greenpeace or the Sierra Club endorsing nuclear power? And just think of all of the nuclear waste being stored in Yucca Mountain just waiting to be reprocessed.

Unfortunately, none of this happened. Environmental groups are against nuclear power. Their campaign of fearmongering helped to keep nuclear power stagnant for decades, Yucca Mountain closed and the US doesn't reprocess spent fuel, which, ironically, exacerbates the nuclear waste problem that environmental groups claim to care about.

Nye and Klein are only the most visible examples of a systemic problem in the environmental movement.

But please continue complaining that people who are skeptical of climate models (that aren't subjected to falsifiability) don't believe in the Ice Age even when they do.

>>9819977
>From http://science.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957
>That is the original source material. If you have a problem with it, then don't bother asking for another source.
Posting more links isn't going to help, because no-one can figure out what you're actually trying to say.

>>9819993
Fuck you, I'm done with you.

>>9819995
>Fuck you, I'm done with you.
Do you need to swear?

>>9819952
>Climate models are unnecessary in proving man made climate change.

Where all of the proof of global warming that isn't climate models are being kept.

>>9820010
>Where all of the proof of global warming that isn't climate models are being kept.
In journals. Did you even bother to look?

Just burn ethanol instead of gasoline, it would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25% and monoxide by 35%.

>>9808237
the entire IPCC case against greenhouse gases rests on forecasts that are so far in the future that they can't be proven wrong.

>>9819946
>How exactly was my use of global warming and climate change dishonest

When the weather is warm, it's global warming. When it isn't, it's climate change.

>When did I say anyone doesn't believe in the ice age?

When you called them a "climate change denier".

>Most of the time when someone mentions climate change, they are talking about current climate change, which is global warming.

That wasn't always the case. Global warming was used for years until people disputed the warming trends and then the term "climate change" came into use.

>Says who? Try being skeptical for once and actually look at what scientists are saying instead of swallowing these long debunked denier talking points.

Like John Christy who developed global temperature data set from satellites? He vehemently disputed the corrections made to the very datasets he recorded.

>I don't think any climatologist would make the mistake of confusing weather for climate.

I didn't mention climatologists. I made a general statement about anyone promoting the belief in global warming by claiming that every natural disaster is proof of global warming.

>Which models were cited as predicting these things and which models don't predict them?

The model prediction which was published in the August 28, 1981 edition of "Science" (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957).). The other link (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL073308)) is to an article about observations that disproves the model's prediction.

>>9819963

Some of the climate models are set in the future past the lifetime of anyone today but we're suppose to trust it anyway.

>>9819890
>Who gives a fuck?
>Naomi Klein isn't a climatologist. Tony Abbot isn't a climatologist. Why do you think the opinions of random chuckfucks are representative of the state of scientific understanding?
>Do you ask the person who delivers you pizza about particle physics?

>So fucking what? That doesn't affect whether or not it's actually TRUE.
Do you get your understanding of every other subject from the opinions of random people on TV?

You can attack someone for pointing out global warming pseudoscience like global warming will increase racism but you can't bring yourself to speak out against that very pseudoscience. If climatologists can't criticize someone like Naomi Klein who is politicizing climate science, then they can step aside and let others call Klein out for her bullshit and not attack them.

>>9808658
>non renewable
nuclear sources are insanely dense in energy and it would take hundreds of years before we even begin to think about running out.

>pollution
a dumb meme that won't die out. Most of the waste problems facing the US is largely artificially created due to restrictions on recycling of fuel rods. These restrictions came from the fact that recyced fuel rods contain fissionable material that could be made into weapons. If I recall correctly it was virtue signalling to discourage pakis and pajeets from making more nuclear weapons.

The deaths related from nuclear is muc much lower than any other source of energy as well.

The only downsides of nuclear is the costs

>>9820139
>it would take hundreds of years before we even begin to think about running out
So maybe outlast coal by a decade or so?

>...
I wonder why the US doesn't want to use all it's U for power generation?

>The deaths related from nuclear is muc much lower than any other source of energy as well.
Every other source of energy save for maybe solar has been around longer than nuclear. Not to mention there's more instances of them.

>The only downsides of nuclear is the costs
Too bad that's the only thing that matters.

>>9820060
>the entire IPCC case against greenhouse gases rests on forecasts that are so far in the future that they can't be proven wrong.
No it doesn't. The IPCC reports aren't even a "case" - they're a synthesis of a bunch published work. The individual papers all rest on different things, so a single piece of work getting overturned wouldn't significantly alter the conclusions of the reports. That's the whole point of a consensus.

>>9820080
>When the weather is warm, it's global warming. When it isn't, it's climate change.
When a denier is making shit up, it's a day that ends with "y".

>That wasn't always the case. Global warming was used for years until people disputed the warming trends and then the term "climate change" came into use.
That never happened. Both terms have been used interchangeably in informal discussions for as long as the subject has existed.

>Like John Christy who developed global temperature data set from satellites? He vehemently disputed the corrections made to the very datasets he recorded.
What does that have do do with your statement "Record heat waves is evidence for climate changes just like blizzards and record cold is proof of climate change"?

>The model prediction which was published in the August 28, 1981 edition of "Science" (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957).). The other link (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL073308)) is to an article about observations that disproves the model's prediction.
No it doesn't.
The first article doesn't even make a prediction of sea-level rise rate - the closest it gets is mentioning the possibility of a West
Antarctic icesheet collapse. And the second article is specifically about corrections to the known rate of sea-level rise.
How can it disprove something that wasn't even addressed?

>>9820139
>nuclear sources are insanely dense in energy and it would take hundreds of years before we even begin to think about running out.

Why do nuclear retards always say this.

At our current rate of consumption, we will run out of easily mineable uranium in roughly 80 years. And we are only producing 5% of the world's electricity by nuclear.

>>9820087
>Some of the climate models are set in the future past the lifetime of anyone today but we're suppose to trust it anyway.
Climate models aren't "set" at a time. That would defeat the whole point of making models.

>>9820108
>You can attack someone for pointing out global warming pseudoscience like global warming will increase racism but you can't bring yourself to speak out against that very pseudoscience.
Sure. One of those two is relevant to this thread.

>>9820194
Not that guy but the amount of radiation put out by a coal plant is many, many times higher than that of a nuclear power plant. The death counting is not deaths total, but deaths per megawatt generated.

>>9820139
>The only downsides of nuclear is the costs

That and radioactive giant ocean dwelling reptiles, dumbass.

>>9820239
>radioactive giant ocean dwelling reptiles
*giant, radioactive, ocean-dwelling reptiles

there is a proper ordering to those words that a retard like you would never instinctively understand.

>>9820229
I always wonder how they come up with that data.. ahhh whatever. I'll take your word for it.

>>9820251
coal ash is so uranium rich you can actually mine it profitably.

Nuclear power plants can't be a long term solution.

>>9810845
Nuclear is the only answer. Everybody denying this is an undergraduate

>>9819977
>That is the original source material. If you have a problem with it, then don't bother asking for another source.
Great, now where in the paper do you see an incorrect prediction about sea level rise? I don't see any. Did you read it?

>And just how many nuclear power plants have opened in the US since the 1980's?
And just how does this argue against anything I said? Again, I know it's very hard for you to respond to my posts instead of beating up a strawman since you have no valid arguments, but do try.

>>9820010
See >>9819202

>>9820060
Wow look at how far into the future this projection is, there's no way to tell if it's correct.

By the way, if the models didn't exist, how would you deny the direct evidence that human emitted CO2 is rapidly warming the Earth?

>>9819656
> if climate change was a priority, which it isn't, these projects would be getting rubber stamped.
You realize this translates to
>if it was important people would do something about it
Which is demonstrably false with numerous historical examples against it.

>>9820218
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/uranium-extraction-from-seawater-takes-a-major-step-forward/

https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-extract-uranium-seawater-nuclear-power

https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy201722

Uranium will last many times more than the entire 200K year life time of the human race.

>>9819937
You prioritize the short term or your lifetime. Over slightly longer timescales than your lifetime climate change will radically alter the environment and as a run on effect our economic systems. If its not mitigated and/or adapted to preemptively it will be a complete disaster.
>>9820010
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall
Its an inescapable basic physical principle that we have known about extensively for nearly 200 years.

>>9820492
OMG its that idiot again.

How is your gold from ocean business going?

>>9809234
>sweaty

>>9820499
He's too busy devising a way to filter the thorium out of his own shit to work on that right now.

>>9820218
Where are you getting your numbers? A cursory google search says 200 years at current levels of consumption.

>>9820080
>When the weather is warm, it's global warming. When it isn't, it's climate change.
When did I say or imply this? Putting words in my mouth is dishonest.

>When you called them a "climate change denier".
Climate change denier has nothing with the ice age. Again you're putting words in my mouth, because you have no argument what I'm actually saying. You lost.

>That wasn't always the case. Global warming was used for years until people disputed the warming trends and then the term "climate change" came into use.
This is simply false. Climate change was in use before global warming and has always been more prevalent in the scientific literature.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

Funny how you claim to be a skeptic yet you swallow whole such easily debunked lies.

>Like John Christy who developed global temperature data set from satellites? He vehemently disputed the corrections made to the very datasets he recorded.
I'm not sure what you're talking about considering Christy himself has published these corrections to his data set, and they show a large cooling bias.

>I didn't mention climatologists.
Then your claim is irrelevant to the accuracy of climatology. When you want to discuss science on the science board instead of shitposting, tell me.

>The model prediction which was published in the August 28, 1981 edition of "Science" (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957).). The other link (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL073308)) is to an article about observations that disproves the model's prediction.
You'll have to be more specific, I don't see any conflict between these papers. What prediction are you talking about?

>>9808237
You realize this is about the money. We would be completely on renewables/carbon neutral sources if it was cheaper than oil. We have the technology, it's just not cost effective.
Even slightly increasing the efficiency of engines could solve global warming.

>>9820258
Why not?

>Climate Change
>>>/x/
https://politicalvelcraft.org/2018/03/27/40-new-scientific-papers-say-global-warming-does-not-exist/

>>9808237
popsci garbage

>>9821307
This is quite possibly the stupidest denier I have ever read.

>>9821307
>>Climate Change
>>>>/x/
>https://politicalvelcraft.org/2018/03/27/40-new-scientific-papers-say-global-warming-does-not-exist/

>>9821752
selfies belong on /soc/

>>9821754
>selfies belong on /soc/
Did you come up with that all by yourself?

>>9821754
nice

If gasoline turns into air after it's used as fuel, and we can turn air into gasoline, why not make it a closed loop system and have infinite power?

>>9821752
>roman warm period
>medieval warm period
were these not debunked?

>>9821764
I think you're missing the point. The retard claims that global warming isn't happening because... the warming is global.

>>9820824
>https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

Skepticalscience(in name only).com: At some point in time, someone said the climate was changing so that means we can ignore all of the people that were talking about global warming suddenly calling it climate change

This is like going to thinkprogress for political news.

>I'm not sure what you're talking about considering Christy himself has published these corrections to his data set, and they show a large cooling bias.

John Christy has disputed claims that the satellite data he collected validates AGW. It is the very people whose work is disputed by Christy's original satellite data that claim the data is in error and that the "corrections" they made proves them correct.

http://www.globalwarming.org/2016/02/05/satellites-and-global-warming-dr-christy-sets-the-record-straight/

BTW: this how skepticalscience.com treats any climatologist that differ from their global warming gospel including John Christy.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm

>>9821793
>so that means we can ignore all of the people that were talking about global warming suddenly calling it climate change
Except you've still not shown that actually ever happened. Do you have any evidence at all?

>John Christy has disputed claims that the satellite data he collected validates AGW.
That's fine, but just because he collected the data doesn't automatically make his interpretation of it correct.

>It is the very people whose work is disputed by Christy's original satellite data that claim the data is in error and that the "corrections" they made proves them correct.
The corrected UAH data clearly shows a global, multi-decadal, warming trend. I don't really see how that's open to debate.
Also, stop putting quotation marks around "corrections", it just makes you look silly.

>BTW: this how skepticalscience.com treats any climatologist that differ from their global warming gospel including John Christy.
That all seems above board, though? They're not insulting him or demanding he be removed from his position, they're listing a bunch of stuff he's said and why they disagree with him.

>>9821793
>muh "curreckshuns"
deniers:
>you can't trust those corrected measurements! the corrections could be introducing bias!
also deniers:
>you can't trust those raw measurements! they need to be corrected for UHI effect and changes in instrumentation!

what deniers really mean to say is:
>you can't trust any evidence! just believe what I tell you to believe.

>>9810178
subversive degenerate comic by the spawn of oven dodgers

>>9810535
Don't bother. The guy you're talking to is retarded, doesn't understand market failures, and correspondingly pigouvian taxes.