Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Still confused about climate change...

Page 16 of 16 [ 251 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Previous topic | Next topic

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

28 Mar 2015, 6:27 am

starfox wrote:
Money Is the reason some people are denying it I think. If the acknowledge that the earth is being damaged then for example: we can't drill for oil anymore and people get filthy rich from oil. Even if we have the ability to use renewable energy it is not being used as much as it could be because of the amount of money in fossil fuels.


For a variety of reasons, using oil, gas, and coal for power is currently less expensive, in general, than other sources of power. Over time, that will change.

Geothermal would be nice, but it is only available in some places. Also, electrical generation from dams.

Wind and solar vary quite a bit. If we were to go with wind and solar on a large scale, I think that out electrical systems would need to be engineered to tolerate low power and power outages. In our modern electrical system, power companies must be ready to respond very quickly to differences in demand for power.

Nuclear fission works, but the construction of the plants are very expensive. What happens when we need to scrap them after their useful life ends is also problematic.

And nuclear fusion isn't here yet.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

28 Mar 2015, 6:53 am

myself wrote:
If you were to wrap a coil of wire around the Earth and keep it fixed as the Earth rotated beneath it, then you could certainly produce electricity.


I'm curious how much power one could generate in that manner. While considered to be a strong magnetic field, the Earth's magnetic field is not all that strong. It's strength at the Earth's surface is considerably less than most magnets that we deal with. I looked it up and at the surface, the Earths magnetic field at the surface at one sample point is 3.2 × 10^-5 Teslas. In comparison, a typical loudspeaker magnet woud be in the range of 1 to 2.4 Teslas.



Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

28 Mar 2015, 8:41 am

eric76 wrote:
...the friction from the tides is slowing the rotation of the Earth.

Impossible. What is the alleged effect on the moon?



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

28 Mar 2015, 8:56 am

Humanaut wrote:
eric76 wrote:
...the friction from the tides is slowing the rotation of the Earth.

Impossible. What is the alleged effect on the moon?


The orbit of the moon slowly enlarges.

By the way, the billion years for the Earth and moon to match should have been several billion years. My error.



Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

28 Mar 2015, 9:22 am

Something must have caused this two-body disturbance.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

28 Mar 2015, 2:57 pm

Humanaut wrote:
Something must have caused this two-body disturbance.


Having an ocean.

There is also friction from tidal forces with the ground, but it is far less -- enough, though, to slow the moon's rotation enough so that it's rotation matches its orbit around the Earth and so we can only see a little more than half of the moon.



Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

28 Mar 2015, 4:57 pm

What is the Sun's role in all of this?



pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

28 Mar 2015, 8:47 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Well, it's just that I have seen these posts around the web and they say there's no evidence CO2 causes climate change. Why would people still believe that?

I don't disregard evidence and I am not a climate change denier. I do not deny we can cause it or other factors can. I have questioned the outcome simply because I have seen a lot of errors.

All I am wondering is why there are people who say there is no evidence CO2 causes climate change...

Because their ignorant and engage in wishful thinking...



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

28 Mar 2015, 9:24 pm

I tend to consider it rather ignorant to believe that what happens in a pristine, carefully controlled lab environment is the same as what happens in the far more complex real world.

I don't know anyone who doesn't believe that CO2 has an effect in theory, but I do know those who think that in the real world it has the same effect.

CO2 really is a greenhouse gas, but it is not the most important greenhouse gas.

In any event, I think it does have an effect, but I don't believe that anyone really knows the actual extent, yet. If I were a climate researcher, then my opinion would group me with the 97% consensus on Global Warming. However, I also welcome the Global Warming -- if history teaches us anything, it is that warmer temperatures are good, not bad. It bothers me that the claims of disaster depend entirely on believing models that are clearly not very accurate instead of history.



pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

28 Mar 2015, 10:28 pm

eric76 wrote:
I tend to consider it rather ignorant to believe that what happens in a pristine, carefully controlled lab environment is the same as what happens in the far more complex real world.

I don't know anyone who doesn't believe that CO2 has an effect in theory, but I do know those who think that in the real world it has the same effect.

CO2 really is a greenhouse gas, but it is not the most important greenhouse gas.

In any event, I think it does have an effect, but I don't believe that anyone really knows the actual extent, yet. If I were a climate researcher, then my opinion would group me with the 97% consensus on Global Warming. However, I also welcome the Global Warming -- if history teaches us anything, it is that warmer temperatures are good, not bad. It bothers me that the claims of disaster depend entirely on believing models that are clearly not very accurate instead of history.


Well, pardon the hell out of. I live in California where we have one of many droughts. Have you checked the glacial retreat around the world. Or perhaps the ice sheet in Greenland. Or the northern passage that's opening up...



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

28 Mar 2015, 10:39 pm

pcuser wrote:
eric76 wrote:
I tend to consider it rather ignorant to believe that what happens in a pristine, carefully controlled lab environment is the same as what happens in the far more complex real world.

I don't know anyone who doesn't believe that CO2 has an effect in theory, but I do know those who think that in the real world it has the same effect.

CO2 really is a greenhouse gas, but it is not the most important greenhouse gas.

In any event, I think it does have an effect, but I don't believe that anyone really knows the actual extent, yet. If I were a climate researcher, then my opinion would group me with the 97% consensus on Global Warming. However, I also welcome the Global Warming -- if history teaches us anything, it is that warmer temperatures are good, not bad. It bothers me that the claims of disaster depend entirely on believing models that are clearly not very accurate instead of history.


Well, pardon the hell out of. I live in California where we have one of many droughts. Have you checked the glacial retreat around the world. Or perhaps the ice sheet in Greenland. Or the northern passage that's opening up...


As I understand it, the drought in California and elsewhere is not believed to have anything to do with Global Warming by real scientists. The only people who think they are linked appears to be those in the general public who don't know anything about the science.

As far as ice melting, so what? Afraid that you're going to wake up some morning in knee deep water? It isn't going to happen. At the rate of sea level rise, it will be so slow as to hardly be noticed. Maybe a foot or two per century. Before rising sea levels reach the point of threatening all but a few ocean front properties, they will probably have changed hands several times and the houses on them will probably have been rebuilt multiple times. If someone is afraid of losing their investment, they can sell now to those who aren't worried about it. Nobody is going to lose money on their ocean front homes without plenty of warning and plenty of opportunities to sell them.

The northwest passage opening up is hardly a bad thing.

There is no reason to panic.