Climate continues to change.
- Thread starter phrodeau
- Start date
- Status
lustatopia
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Posts
- 1,667
It hasn't?
Actually, of course not.
Any solution can only attempt to reach that true state.
Hal, there are two totally different meanings to climate equilibrium. The one we mean when talking about climate change on Earth is about temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_equilibrium_temperature
The other is mostly about looking for life on other planets in the solar system or on exosolar planets. It is easy to see a living planet like Earth from even millions of light years distance if you have a powerful enough telescopic spectrometer which can analysis the different chemical ratios in the atmosphere.
If an alien astronomer looked at Earth, even 2.5 billion years ago he would see that the Earth was living because the chemical balance in atmosphere was far from equilibrium and so must be driven by at least a bacterial life producing, say O2 or methane, faster than it can be bonded chemically in nature. He could even tell what the chemistry basis of that life was on about.
Earth astronomers have found hundreds of exoplanets. Whenever they find one they look at it with a spectrometer. If they ever find one an atmosphere which is not at a chemical equilibrium, you'll hear it about.
Hal9000_
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2018
- Posts
- 4,083
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasis
Of course we , as observers, must attempt an observation, static, in time.
What does observation do to our measurement?
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Here is the Washington Post's "Dangerous Anthropogenic Climate Change/Global Warming" conjecture reporting team:
Steven Mufson - B.A. in economics and political science
Chris Mooney - B.A. in English
Juliet Eilperin - A.B. in Politics, Certificate in Latin American Studies
John Muyskens - Bachelor of Science in Computer Science (graphic editor for the paper)
Chris Mooney - B.A. in English
Juliet Eilperin - A.B. in Politics, Certificate in Latin American Studies
John Muyskens - Bachelor of Science in Computer Science (graphic editor for the paper)
gunthernehmen
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Posts
- 2,907
gunthernehmen
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Posts
- 2,907
Very well stated. You know, if you were five.
What specifically do you disagree with and why?
The fact (which Hal, Phro and the others stipulate) that climate changes naturally?
The fact that virtually none of the ACC crowd does anything whatsoever to heal the situation they believe in (except perhaps buying carbon credits in Brazil)?
Or the concern that some of ideas floated to replace fossil fuels for core power generation might have some issues of their own? Like devastating undersea environments (but leaving what we can SEE intact)?
Or is it just that you "disagree" but you just can't figure out why?
Use your words. You can do it.
Hal9000_
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2018
- Posts
- 4,083
Oil and coal emissions are the primary cause of current atmospheric CO2 concentration levels.
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/
Quibble as you may about the effects...
von_Bismarck
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Posts
- 6,587
gunthernehmen
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Posts
- 2,907
https://news.usc.edu/153926/how-undersea-carbon-reservoirs-once-helped-superheat-earth/
Thank God it's just us then! Nature can be far worse to CO2 levels left to it's own.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
CO2 levels are higher at this moment than they have been in at least three million years. Not even any Younger Dryas impact has done as much.
gunthernehmen
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Posts
- 2,907
And that has what to do with either my comment or the linked article?
Hal9000_
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2018
- Posts
- 4,083
Ha...I should have specified human fossil fuel co2 emissions.
As evidenced by the disparity between c12 and c13 isotopes in the atmosphere.
Carbon-12 is from burning fossil fuels. Carbon-13 is from breathing and the natural carbon cycle.
Guess which is rising?
https://www.nature.com/articles/375666a0
Hal9000_
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2018
- Posts
- 4,083
True enough...
Let's talk more about some of the arguments presented.
A main one being that "the only way to curtail ACC is to immediately stop burning fossil fuels".
Why does this have to be the case? At all? We have the technology to trap and store the carbon we burn.
And...if it turns out to be a mistake, what's to stop us from controlled releases of said stored co2?
Everyone can win. Energy companies, Earth, gaia, etc...
gunthernehmen
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Posts
- 2,907
Obvious is one word that is never acceptable in science but it's always acceptable in religious discussions.
Keep the faith, brother!
Hal9000_
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2018
- Posts
- 4,083
You ain't no scientist.
Neither am I. And this isn't a peer reviewed journal. It's a porn site.
Pervert.
gunthernehmen
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Posts
- 2,907
Don't be silly. Stopping the use of fossil fuels will do nothing. Partly because it's only one driver and partly because of the momentum phro was talking about.
Still, continuing to use them if you actually believe they caused the problem is hypocrisy of the highest order.
As far as sequestration is concerned, silly human to think you can fix tech problems with yet more tech.
lustatopia
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Posts
- 1,667
True enough...
Let's talk more about some of the arguments presented.
A main one being that "the only way to curtail ACC is to immediately stop burning fossil fuels".
Why does this have to be the case? At all? We have the technology to trap and store the carbon we burn.
And...if it turns out to be a mistake, what's to stop us from controlled releases of said stored co2?
Everyone can win. Energy companies, Earth, gaia, etc...
Wrong. Carbon sequestration is impossible on the scale required and is prohibitively expensive as well as being incredible useless. Plus, it's basically fracking-like technology. Imagine pumping up the fucking Earth's upper crust with billions of tons of high pressure CO2 concentrates.
Hey, what could go wrong?
thør
Karhu-er
- Joined
- May 29, 2002
- Posts
- 90,700
True enough...
Let's talk more about some of the arguments presented.
A main one being that "the only way to curtail ACC is to immediately stop burning fossil fuels".
Why does this have to be the case? At all? We have the technology to trap and store the carbon we burn.
And...if it turns out to be a mistake, what's to stop us from controlled releases of said stored co2?
Everyone can win. Energy companies, Earth, gaia, etc...
If everyone wins, no one can be THE winner.
No can do!
Hal9000_
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2018
- Posts
- 4,083
Actually Thor talked about heat "momentum". And I mentioned that one volcanic eruption can cause cooling very quickly despite the rising temps "kinetic" energy.
And still, because of people like you, what choice does anyone have? You say even a gradual shift to alternatives would kill everything. Defeatism and fatalism at it's height. And false.
As for sequestration...now you've pivoted to "it won't work anyway", from "it might have unintended catastrophic consequences!"
Make up yer mind, already.
Hal9000_
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2018
- Posts
- 4,083
Underground storage is one way. One. Imagine you pointing at one strategy to denounce an entire concept.
And because you say something is impossible does not a truth make.
Hal9000_
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2018
- Posts
- 4,083
- Status
Similar threads
