PDA

View Full Version : It's not the time to discuss climate change



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

submessenger
9/09/2017 1:50am,
E = m *c *c. {m = water and earth}.

There's so much more energy in the water now.

Hotter earth? Humans can deal with it.

Hotter water? Nope.

E=(mc)+(pc)

You can't forget that we're on a giant spaceship, traveling in a relatively linear direction through space as the universe expands.

ChenPengFi
9/09/2017 2:25am,
I'm hoping for a technological save of some type, but that's not going to happen when half the country thinks the problem doesn't exist. That fat **** Rush Limbaugh said the hurricanes were fake news meant to propaganda for climate change. I notice he still decided to evacuate though.


Can I nominate that ^ for the dumbest post of the year?

https://www.financialsense.com/sites/default/files/users/u673/images/2012/0313/per-capita-energy-consumption-countries.png


https://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/visual/img_lrg/world_pop.jpg


Here's your technological save:
http://img.wennermedia.com/article-leads-horizontal/rs-198496-42-60000925.jpg

ChenPengFi
9/09/2017 2:28am,
By earth I mean matter that isn't water, hence the lowercase 'e'.

Climate change science is based on the premise that mankind has introduced a large amount of energy into the system in an organic/human-negative sense.


Where did the humans get this energy from?

submessenger
9/09/2017 2:38am,
Can I nominate that ^ for the dumbest post of the year?

Sure, just pop it in the thread. You already have a nomination, so this will override... http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?p=2910351#post2910351

MisterMR
9/09/2017 7:02am,
It's not the time to discuss climate change!
That time was 20-30 years ago, and I remember that when I was a kid this was in fact already discussed.
Some 10 year ago was the time to do something.
Now it's time to do something while tightening the seatbelts.

@ChenPengFi
So you post a graph that shows that europeans consume double the amount of the average earthling, the americans 4 times that, and the solution is for the non-european-or-american earthlings to reproduce less?

Bneterasedmynam
9/09/2017 10:43am,
Can I nominate that ^ for the dumbest post of the year?

https://www.financialsense.com/sites/default/files/users/u673/images/2012/0313/per-capita-energy-consumption-countries.png


https://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/visual/img_lrg/world_pop.jpg


Here's your technological save:
http://img.wennermedia.com/article-leads-horizontal/rs-198496-42-60000925.jpg

Well this is my nomination then. You're parroting the bullshit republican argument of "overpopulation so we might as well do nothing". Nope sorry fucker, but technology can help us. Switching to green energy can help us. Inventing new ways to to help clean our air and water can fucking help jackass.

BKR
9/09/2017 12:36pm,
I was just paraphrasing NASA.

Insert a link the way I do which by the way I do in the format that you suggested.

BKR
9/09/2017 12:39pm,
Insert a link the way I do which by the way I do in the format that you suggested.


Those fires are influenced by climate change too.

Did you see the picture of people golfing behind the Oregon fires? People just don't give a ****.

This is not photoshopped:

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/21316368_1241028496001648_8733304694012942286_o.jp g?oh=09fe1da8f2d6beffc5d6c4b99d3ba247&oe=5A13B419

Yeah people don't give a s***. And I bet those guys are from Portland and probably don't have any property burning up in the Eagle Creek Fire either.

People give a s*** about the fires. A large part of what you're seind is due to poor Forest management practices. Because you know people protesting about environmental damage caused by logging.

I've driven through that very area Eagle Creek Multnomah Falls The Gorge three times in the last 3 years it's heavily forested and needed to be logged along time ago.

BKR
9/09/2017 12:44pm,
Insert a link the way I do which by the way I do in the format that you suggested.


Where did the humans get this energy from?

Are two main sources of energy on the planet throughout history of the solar system and the Earth .

Solar energy and radiogenic energy from the decay of radioactive isotopes in the Earth.

Hydrocarbon energy ultimately is energy from the sun because hydrocarbons are sourced as either plant material being Plankton or land plant material think coal or in some cases Natural Gas.

I'm going to go help with housework and then go do some Jiu-Jitsu training have fun guys.

BackFistMonkey
9/09/2017 12:58pm,
Can I nominate that ^ for the dumbest post of the year?

https://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/visual/img_lrg/world_pop.jpg



The problem with the population graph, is that it is wrong. It assumes there is no improvement of standard of living in developing countries which should be a global focus. Education, increasing the standard of living, and the value of life all lead to population stabilization.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E

Excellent video on the topic.
I have posted it before.

ChenPengFi
9/09/2017 1:40pm,
It's not the time to discuss climate change!
That time was 20-30 years ago, and I remember that when I was a kid this was in fact already discussed.
Some 10 year ago was the time to do something.
Now it's time to do something while tightening the seatbelts.

@ChenPengFi
So you post a graph that shows that europeans consume double the amount of the average earthling, the americans 4 times that, and the solution is for the non-european-or-american earthlings to reproduce less?

Per capita energy use indicates a flat to upward trend.
It shows no sign of going down despite all of our technological advances over the last half century.
China peeking out on the bottom there is troubling in that regard too.
Point is, the world at large is catching up, AND getting more populated.
Even if population remained flat, one would expect an upward trend overall in energy consumption, due to increases in standard of living in *developing* countries.
Therefore, it's fantasy to suggest a technological breakthrough would solve things, when there's nothing to suggest that';s the case, and in fact, technology is what's driving our consumption.

It IS a too many people problem, not a lack of technology one.
Just think of the wattage of a decent laptop.
Those didn't even exist a few years ago, when that timeline started.
Blenders are 3x(!) as powerful as they were then, and they don't last as long.
That's our tech for you; despite energy star led lamps, people still want huge TVs and all sorts of hi powered electronics.

ChenPengFi
9/09/2017 1:45pm,
The problem with the population graph, is that it is wrong. It assumes there is no improvement of standard of living in developing countries which should be a global focus. Education, increasing the standard of living, and the value of life all lead to population stabilization.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E

Excellent video on the topic.
I have posted it before.


AFTER a long period of growth, and the end per capita consumption is much greater then too.
That graph is probably correct, in that it only extrapolates a few years.
One would expect it to flatten off at some point, but not nearly in that timeframe I argue.
You're suggesting everyone will be up to first world conditions and mental states by 2050, LOL...

BackFistMonkey
9/09/2017 2:13pm,
AFTER a long period of growth, and the end per capita consumption is much greater then too.
That graph is probably correct, in that it only extrapolates a few years.
One would expect it to flatten off at some point, but not nearly in that timeframe I argue.
You're suggesting everyone will be up to first world conditions and mental states by 2050, LOL...

No I am not. I made no such claims.

You didn't watch the video.

ChenPengFi
9/09/2017 3:54pm,
No I am not. I made no such claims.

You didn't watch the video.


It's implicit in saying that graph is wrong, based on that video.

BackFistMonkey
9/09/2017 4:15pm,
It's implicit in saying that graph is wrong, based on that video.

So bangladesh is a 1st world country in education and wealth?

Bneterasedmynam
9/09/2017 4:30pm,
Per capita energy use indicates a flat to upward trend.
It shows no sign of going down despite all of our technological advances over the last half century.
China peeking out on the bottom there is troubling in that regard too.
Point is, the world at large is catching up, AND getting more populated.
Even if population remained flat, one would expect an upward trend overall in energy consumption, due to increases in standard of living in *developing* countries.
Therefore, it's fantasy to suggest a technological breakthrough would solve things, when there's nothing to suggest that';s the case, and in fact, technology is what's driving our consumption.

It IS a too many people problem, not a lack of technology one.
Just think of the wattage of a decent laptop.
Those didn't even exist a few years ago, when that timeline started.
Blenders are 3x(!) as powerful as they were then, and they don't last as long.
That's our tech for you; despite energy star led lamps, people still want huge TVs and all sorts of hi powered electronics.

That's all fine, but it's still a bullshit excuse to say that technology couldn't drastically reduce the problem. Switching to clean energy especially solar could help. It's not even a debate as other countries have started to switch to cleaner energy and the results are there to see. I mean that literally, places that have switched have less smog and better air quality. If the world as a whole could convince the fucktards like Trump to invest in new technology there actually is a good chance of fixing the problem.