-->
@Ramshutu
I agree with your rebuttal in post 14, but if a global economic shutdown barely made a dent in climate change, I’m left wondering what will…
Why I don't believe in climate change (as someone who isn't a republican or conservative)
Posts
Total:
122
-->
@n8nrgmi
Scientists are having to prop them up by genetically altering them to withstand higher temperatures so they don’t bleach.
-->
@Greyparrot
A more refined position u could take would be to say humans r causing climate change but we can live with the results... But no u would rather eat the propaganda and drink the kool aid
Has anyone talked about the 10 hottest years on record having been within the last 12 years?
-->
@n8nrgmi
So the interesting thing about the reefs is that it assumes 2 things at once with your question.
1. There exists a specific optimal population number for coral reefs.
and
2. There exists a corresponding optimal climate for that optimal population.
If you think about how natural selection works and how populations of life have never been static at any point in Earth history, the absurdity of either of those claims becomes abundantly apparent. We don't really know the optimal population level for any species of life on Earth, including humans, so to speculate that the population level of the coral reef if off is pure speculation as well. Natural selection is the only mechanism to measure sustainable populations, and even then, the optimal population point is forever changing.
In Short, George Carlin said it best.
"The Earth is fine. It's the people who are fucked."
-->
@Greyparrot
So ur position is that after millions of years of thriving we can't speculate why the reefs chose the industrial age to die cause it could just be a big coincidence? And we should ignore that all of science is predicting this based on man made climate change. Sure, completely reasonable.
-->
@n8nrgmi
Not at all. I am saying it's entirely unreasonable and arbitrary to believe that the optimal coral reef population was the period right before the industrial age and nowhere else at any point in Earth's billion year history.
Hollywood made billions of dollars debunking this idea of "optimal population of a species based on human whim" with the entire Jurassic park franchise.
-->
@Reece101
Not that records have been kept for so long......(Globally, about 140 years).
What was it like during the Triassic period for example?
Though in the end, a fucking great asteroid turned out to be more of a problem.
-->
@zedvictor4
Has anyone talked about the 10 hottest years on record having been within the last 12 years?Not that records have been kept for so long......(Globally, about 140 years).
The temperature changes that we’re facing usually takes thousands of years
What was it like during the Triassic period for example?
1. What’s it like on Venus? *shrugs*
2. The Triassic Period went from 250-200 million years ago, ruffle. It was a different environment with different species that were adapted for it (which took time).
Though in the end, a fucking great asteroid turned out to be more of a problem.
You do realise there’s been more than one mass extinction, not just the K-T asteroid in the Cretaceous 65 million years ago.
There’s been far worse mass extinctions that had nothing to do with asteroids hitting Earth.
-->
@Greyparrot
What "Climate scientist" says all human life is going to end in 8 years? Lol.
No serious climate scientist is saying that. It is, as usual, another caricature of yours.
Let's take a gander at those "findings"
Sure. We can start with...
The Earth has had more CO2 in the atmosphere and has been warmer before (google Permian age). Polarcaps have melted many times.
@RM
However, I do not claim to run a carbon-free life, it's not easy to get renewable energy for my mains electricity and such at an affordable price just yet in most countries.
You don't have to buy solar panels if you can't afford it; just buy your energy from someone that produces clean energy.
I also have personally given a small amount to a charity fighting deforestation and will give more when/if I'm well-off enough to with enough disposable income.
That's fine if you can't donate that much if your poor, but pretty much every democrat politician claims they care about the environment, is rich enough to buy solar panels, and hasn't bought solar panels. I recommend you don't vote for democrat politicians if they aren't going to buy solar panels if they encourage others to get them. You don't have to vote for republicans, but hold your politicians accountable for the stuff they promised to do.
-->
@n8nrgmi
How do you explain coral reefs dying?
I don't know if they are dying, but if they are, I have the same reaction as if some grass dies; I don't really care. I don't consider reefs or grass to have intrinsic value.
-->
@Benjamin
The sources I reference I don't think are biased in any way. One of them come is NASA I think.
-->
@Ramshutu
Natural sources adding and removing carbon have generally been in reasonable equilibrium - until humans started dumping vast quantities of co2 from long term stores into the air.
The equilibrium would balance. If there is more CO2 in the air, then plants can get bigger and absorb more CO2, leading to more CO2 being produced, but also more CO2 being consumed.
Sorry I can't respond to everything you said, but I have a lot of comments to get to.
-->
@zedvictor4
It's about 5 pages as of now.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If you are talking about throwing a few solar panels up on your roof to reduce your energy bill, that actually is very common even among climate deniers because (and you can fact check me on this too) people like paying less in utility bills.
I'm referring to small solar panel collections for middle class people and large solar farms for people that can afford them. Solar panels do save money on energy bills, but they only save about $100/month ($1200 a year) from energy costs and they cost about $20000 to install. This yields a 6% annual profit ($1200/20k). I can make about double that from stock and about 4x that from renting out houses, so I prefer those investments.
-->
@n8nrgmi
We also r putting more co2 than we've had for millions of years, there's twice as much as we've had for u hundreds of thousands. And we know it has a greenhouse effect, so do the math
I addressed that in the document. We have about 120 ppm more CO2 in the atmosphere than before the industrial revolution. This is about .012% more CO2 (120/1000000). If this increase is supposed to cause a 2 degree C increase in temperature, then if the atmosphere was 4 extra percent CO2 (40000 per million extra), the atmosphere would be about 60 degrees Celsius hotter from an atmosphere having only slightly more CO2 in it in terms of points. I don't think this would be accurate. I addressed this in the document.
-->
@TheUnderdog
How u feel about reefs is irrelevant... It makes no sense that they'd just die in the industrial era after millions of years of thriving. The fact they need gene therapy due to the heat highlights the fact
-->
@TheUnderdog
You say that you prefer to rent out houses, yet you aren't actually doing so. How hypocritical!!!
Do you see how silly you sound now?
-->
@Double_R
No serious climate scientist is saying that. It is, as usual, another caricature of yours.
So we can call every politician out who says so as a bullshit con artist and also anti-science. Thanks for getting on board.
-->
@n8nrgmi
The fact they need gene therapy
That's like saying we need the Dinosaurs back like another Jurassic park franchise. It's arbitrary and unfounded. Why pick that spot as the optimal population? Why? What is your reasoning? Feelings? How are you so sure the Earth doesn't need less coral reef? How do you know for sure Natural selection has it all wrong and we need to fix it through human meddling?
-->
@Reece101
What’s it like on Venus? *shrugs*
If Venus had an atmosphere with the same heat emissivity as Earth, its average temperature would be about 70 Celsius. This follows pretty easily from the Stefan-Boltzmann law, since Venus gets about twice the solar energy, its temperature would be 2^0.25 times higher. Too hot for life.
-->
@TheUnderdog
The equilibrium would balance. If there is more CO2 in the air, then plants can get bigger and absorb more CO2, leading to more CO2 being produced, but also more CO2 being consumed.Sorry I can't respond to everything you said, but I have a lot of comments to get to.
If that were true - then CO2 wouldn’t be going up - but it is. Hence what you said can’t be true.
-->
@TheUnderdog
The equilibrium would balance.
That takes a lot of time, but I am sure Elon Musk will engineer the next batch of Dinosaur plants to "save the planet"
Jeff Goldblum really needs to step in here and say "hold up!"
"The science is so preoccupied with whether or not they could save the coral reefs that they never stop to think if they should"
-->
@Reece101
No doubt.
There's another thread somewhere, which considers what is and isn't natural.
And my line on climate change, is the same as my line on nature.
If humanity by it's actions, affects the global climate, then that is a natural event.
-->
@Greyparrot
So we can call every politician out who says so as a bullshit con artist and also anti-science.
If there actually were any, then sure.
-->
@zedvictor4
Seriously? If a family member gets diagnosed with something due to smoking too many cigarettes, are you just going to lay back and say whelp, it’s natural.
In a non-colloquial sense everything is natural. So what?
If Venus had an atmosphere with the same heat emissivity as Earth, its average temperature would be about 70 Celsius. This follows pretty easily from the Stefan-Boltzmann law, since Venus gets about twice the solar energy, its temperature would be 2^0.25 times higher. Too hot for life.
Ignoring for a moment that you quoted this directly from quora, so I’m not entirely sure how much it you understand; Venus with a similar greenhouse effect as earth, would indeed be around 70 degrees (343k).
What you want to do, though, is the other way around and figure out what earth would be like with venuses emissivity - which is what Reece was implying.
Venus has a surface temperature of 495 Celsius - 770K, which if you apply Stefan Boltzman in the same way, would mean you have to multiple by 0.5^0.25 - or half the incident radiation, would would yield 770 x 0.84 - or 664K or 390 degrees.
Checking the maths with my astrophysicist friends - I am assured that this is indeed higher than 70 degrees.
Yeah but to get to that emissivity, you would have to move the earth to Venuses orbit so that the 70 degree Celsius (158 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature can start breaking the carbon out of the limestone. It's way too cold where Earth is in its current orbit for this to happen. A planetary catch 22.
Yeah but to get to that emissivity, you would have to move the earth to Venuses orbit so that the 70 degree Celsius (158 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature can start breaking the carbon out of the limestone. It's way too cold where Earth is in its current orbit for this to happen. A planetary catch 22.
Anyone who owns a kettle should be able to figure out that limestone doesn’t thermally decompose at 70 degrees.