Except it's not. If it gets warmer, then Minnesota will spend less energy warming, but Florida will spend more energy cooling.
Next you'll be saying that everyone should just move north because we'll have made Florida too hot.
-FUDie
Global warming
- Thread starter Frank
- Start date
- Status
Next you'll be saying that everyone should just move north because we'll have made Florida too hot.
-FUDie
The thing with climate is, that it takes at least centuries to trend, and that it isn't linear: a single El Nino, volcanic eruption or many other things will change the global temperature for years or decades. And it is cyclic as well, with the smallest period being 11 years (short Sun cycle), 62 years for the global peristaltic, etc.
There is no linearity anywhere, even the overall trend has to be graphed over milennia, and has to take all those shorter period cycles into account...
Well, the Netherlands won't be underwater in a few decades, or centuries. Simply because we prevent it. And you only need shovels to build levies, it's probably easier in poor countries where the people simply grab one and start adding to it, than in the US where you need many committees and funding campaigns to make the same happen. Although they'll use bulldozers, because nobody is poor enough to do it with a shovel.
Assuming they didn't pull that expensive and marketed model out of their ass. Which is equally likely.
Isn't that an easy to grasp world you live in? Label the people and simply looking up the appropriate response to that kind, instead of considering the arguments on their scientific merit?
Ah, wait, I forget that science is your religion. Don't mind me.
People can withstand a lot of heat, but need extra warmth or food to sustain cold. AC is a luxury.
Edit: being very embarrassed while sweaty wearing your expensive suit is cultural.
Last edited by a moderator:
corduroygt
Banned
Well, there is far more land up north that's just empty...
The indigenous folks of Alaska do fine in the cold. I.e. you're picking ambiguous temperature points.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, we can also live in space, where it's much colder than in Alaska, and there isn't even any oxygen. As long as you have the technology to do so. Granted, building an igloo and creating clothes from hides is far easier than building the technology you need to survive in space. And you won't need any technology to survive in the tropics.
Without oxygen, water or food you won't survive. But if you have those covered, the tropics are a far friendlier place to live than the poles. And those necessities are much easier to find there.
The amount of people living around the equator is vastly larger than the amount living on Antarctica and the North Pole.
Plenty of machinery needs to be cooled to run properly, too. Yes, AC is a luxury for people, but if you're recommending people not use AC then you're taking a step backwards.
"Yay for global warming, too bad it's made it so hot that AC is too expensive." Yeah, that's logical.
-FUDie
And it's free to move people and infrastructure? What about farmland? Is the land up north suitable for farming? You are so short-sighted, it's amazing.
-FUDie
And plenty of machinery needs to be warmed to run properly, too, like the engine of your car.
Here in the Netherlands, common light bulbs are outlawed because they're not energy efficient enough. That's peanuts compared to AC, but then again, AC and gas-guzzling cars won't be outlawed in the near future in the US. Many residents see those as essentials.
Where and when did I state that I like, want or need global warming? I merely say that I don't see it happening, and wouldn't lose any sleep over it actually being there.
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you insured against everything that might decrease your hard-fought-for happiness?
I'll bet your insurance doesn't cover "forces of nature", like a lightning strike that destroys your electronics, or a hurricane or flood that destroys your house. Or anything for which you didn't buy and install "adequate protection".
In any case, nature doesn't care one way or the other if you suffer.
Not really, as AC equipment must run on high-grade energy in the form of electricity, which needs to be generated and distributed with associated waste at every step, whereas heating can come from what is already waste sources, such as electric powerplant heat exchangers, paper or steel mills, refineries, garbage incineration facilities and so on, and then distributed in a network of pipes across a city-wide area. This is very common in Sweden for example.
Electricity is always going to be more expensive than waste heat, at least in anything remotely resembling a free market economy, since it's the more valuable and versatile form of energy of the two.
Maybe they are, and so what if they are? Why's that a problem?
Wouldn't it be more of a problem if they never changed, despite our still limited understanding of the global weather system? I don't get you anti-science, anti-reasoning types. You act as if honing and refining our knowledge is a bad thing.
You think ANY field of science just sprung into existence fully-fledged from the get-go? Wtflol. You must be completely daft... Just take a look at astrophysics. Start at the beginning, the ancient greeks and whatnot, early christians, then Kepler, Copernicus and so on. Moving on into modern times with the discoveries of galaxies, red-shift, cosmic background radiation, on and on and on. How many times didn't scientists (or their progenitors in ancient times) form a view of the universe, only for it to be discarded later on.
Saying that EXPANDING KNOWLEDGE IS BAD, or makes science suspect, is completely fucked-up. You even have any idea how fucked-up that is? Why don't you read up on the scientific model, how it works, what a scientific theory really is (specifically, it's not merely GUESSWORK.)
You don't really have a clue wether it is alarmist propaganda or not, since you lack any and all experience and competence in the fields of climate science... You're just burping denialist talking points on cue like a good puppet, thinking you actually got anything worthwile to say (and you're mistaken.)
Plants and animals may be able to withstand variations on that scale over SHORT time periods. Over longer time periods, odd things can, and usually do happen. Everything from the sex distribution in fish, amphibian or reptilian population population changing proportions, species migrations (including invasions of pests or diseases that never previously existed in that area), plant extinctions and so on.
He simply doesn't know what he's talking about. Or perhaps rather, he doesn't know what he's saying really means, since he doesn't understand the true meaning of concepts like energy. He probably either didn't study physics in school, or didn't pay much attention during class.
Instead, he read some shit on the internet that fit his own preconcieved ideas and then latched onto it, since he would simply prefer things to stay the way they are now. Much more convenient, besides, that way he can supposedly save a buck too by not having to care about the environment.
The Netherlands is just a flyspeck on the map of the european continent, which just happens to be the smallest, or maybe 2nd smallest of the earth's continents (maybe we're bigger than Oz, I can't be arsed to look it up right now), and then consider that only 40% of so of the planet's surface is landmass to begin with. So what temperature you had during 2010 really doesn't matter a whole lot in the big scheme of things.
corduroygt
Banned
Well most of the people who'll have to move won't have any existing infrastructure anyway.
Well, you need an energy source to cool, which can be anything. A cool-box for camping likely uses butane gas, which is burned to cool it. No electricity is needed. And that camping cooler is probably more efficient than a refrigerator using electricity, if you take infrastructure building and maintenance, and transport losses into account.
The point would be, that we know those models are only crude approximations, and very limited.
That they change so often, SHOULD encourage people to question and criticize them, so they can be improved upon.
I think it's quite stupid to shout: "Sacrilege!" whenever someone does so.
According to... You? The IPCC? The Right Scientists?
"If you're not for us, you're for the terrorists!"
That's evolution for you. Very scientific. Although the time spans involved make a millennium look like a short time. Worrying about things like that doesn't make any sense to me.
Ranting is easy, explaining and backing up your argument is a lot harder.
And no, I don't think posting any link is proof that you know what you're talking about.
Yes, I know things don't matter if they don't happen in the US, to Americans. But they do to the rest of the world.The Netherlands is just a flyspeck on the map of the european continent, which just happens to be the smallest, or maybe 2nd smallest of the earth's continents (maybe we're bigger than Oz, I can't be arsed to look it up right now), and then consider that only 40% of so of the planet's surface is landmass to begin with. So what temperature you had during 2010 really doesn't matter a whole lot in the big scheme of things.
corduroygt
Banned
Waste heat is simply not available as a heating source for most homes, a very small fraction of heating is done via waste heat, otherwise you'd be able to sit in your living room with your TV on and not need to turn on the heater in below freezing weather.
Acting on unrefined knowledge to increase taxpayer burden by trillions is a bad thing indeed.
Some species die out, others fill the void, sounds like the modus operandi of mother nature to me. So what if we don't get any more polar bears, but have more brown bears, big deal.
A common form of energy used in heating is electricity, since we established waste heat is not a realistic source of heat for many. Most electricity comes from burning hydrocarbons since it's the cheapest (except nukes but you can't get permission to build them in the first place), therefore producing CO2. That's why you can directly correlate CO2 emissions to energy production in that case.
I have a better understanding of energy than you think, such as the transfer of it from a supersonic 120 gram object to a (smelly) 80kg body that belongs to someone who's trying to tax me based on carbon emissions.
Neither does what scientists measured and modeled after 30 years of data collection matter in the big scheme of things.So what temperature you had during 2010 really doesn't matter a whole lot in the big scheme of things.
Last edited by a moderator:
Read this. It helps if you know about computer programming.
In short: this is the "diary" of the programmer tasked to recreate the hockey stick theory from the available meteorological data. He isn't asked to graph it to his best effort, but to massage it as much as it takes to recreate that hockey stick graph.
It's very illuminating.
And the resulting dataset is considered to be the best GW data available.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I was thinking that example would come up, and you know what? Ever wondered why only camping coolboxes are butane powered?
It's not really because butane (or whatever combustible gas you care to run it on) isn't available widely distributed; many cities do have gas mains. As usual, it's cost and efficiency. Heating something to make something else cooler just isn't a very smart way of going about things. You accept it while camping because the alternative of not being able to bring perishables with you (or for the so inclined, beer) would be even worse, but it isn't economical on a daily basis.
Of course, they're cruder and even more limited the more negatively biased you are to the possibility of human-induced climate change. The alternative would be to do nothing instead, until we're certain. By which point it would be too late to do anything about it when we find out we were right all along.
And how smart would that be really?
Criticism occurs all the time in a peer-reviewed process, however most of the "criticism" aimed at climate change research isn't constructive in any way or shape, much is merely knee-jerk responses and noise coming from usually wholly ignorant people like Mr. Corduroy here for example who lack any formal education on the subject but doesn't let that stop him from being not just extremely opinionated but also dead certain he's right.
Criticism just for the sake of it has no inherit value, nor does criticism that lacks relevance - ie is not based on an actual understanding on the subject, but rather listening to poo-flinging conservative monkeys in the peanut gallery who are often funded by rich lobbying firms working for the oil and gas industry.
Strawman.
No, that's just environmental destruction.
What, knowing that we're destroying our own planet doesn't make you worried?
That's a rather silly strawman too. A, I'm not american, and B, where global climate over a period of time is concerned, the local weather in NE during one single year really doesn't have a hugely enormous impact.
What the fuck are you smoking? It's based on two very simple processes:
1. Ocean warming. As ocean water warms, it expands. This is directly measurable, and pretty easy to estimate.
2. Melting of overland ice. For a low estimate, we can merely take the current rate of land ice melt and extend it into the future.
I'm not the one that is disregarding physical evidence. You are. That's why you're a denialist: you're denying the physical evidence. And you did just that in this very post, by simply assuming, without bothering to investigate, that scientists who have dedicated their lives to understanding climate simply pull stuff out of their asses.
This is called poisoning the well. There simply isn't anything there that impacts the reliability of the results to any significant degree. What makes this abundantly clear is that today we have a whole bunch of climate reconstructions, done with different methods and using different data, and they all come to the same conclusions.
- Status
Similar threads
