OK you man-made climate change gurus, educate me...

Post Reply New Topic

No, that's based on radar or satellite information & computational modeling.

_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos

What the climate scientists present are "worst case scenarios," usually. And they usually state that it is a "worst case scenario." They don't believe in the inevitability of these "scenarios"---they only believe in the possibility should such and such happen.

The potential is there for "this and this" to happen if we don't do "this."

Some people, though, take these "worst case scenarios" as a sort of "gospel." They "sound the alarm." It is possible that they don't read the full articles written by these scientists.

Not the most eloquent in writing, but if you look at The first law of thermodynamics. it's rather simple the Universe likes to store energy rather than waste it, it's released gradually over time and reabsorbed, if you have a closed system like the Earth with a population releasing that stored energy quicker than it can store it, you have a huge imbalance lots of energy release = climate change, energy can't be created or destroyed only transformed the net effect of releasing carbon will be climate change the oceans soak it up making the Oceans more acidic killing the algae that provides 70/80% of the oxygen we have in our atmosphere, they may evolve and keep up with climate change. Yes climate change can happen naturally without human interaction but the imbalance we have created is not helping.

I see it simply the fossil fuels take an inordinate amount of time to condense to a usable form carbon/energy release it fast enough over a short period of time you can see the imbalance it would create environmentally, imagine if the same animals sea creature we use as fuel did not die in the first place over the millions of years life has been around we would be in a much worse situation be no room to move let alone breath, releasing that stored energy that nature naturally stored is not a good thing. No not all Chemistry creates bad outcomes agree with that, but the interaction of carbon in the atmosphere is well known and studied. life lives on dead life everything is just a calorie for something else. we may well find a way to halt global warming so industry can carry on as normal or create a good source of clean energy that does not harm the environment, but good old coal and oil has so much energy with a high conversion rate. solar is only good in certain parts of the world. Wind energy needs maintenance then you have to think about food growth and distribution as it's carbon that's keeping the current population alive, we are on a hiding to nowhere if we are not careful, we are certainly good at manipulating our environment be interesting to see if it can be solved the energy still has to come from somewhere.

Always liked the idea of a way to recombine split atoms now that would be interesting i'm not talking like stopping a nuclear reactor by absorbing neutrons with control rods, be like a reverse timeline would break thermodynamics and be a perpetual motion machine then. This is interesting https://www.laboratoryequipment.com/new ... ner-energy

Was pseudoscience wobble really ignore it, but if we could turn back time, which is not going to happen split an atom recombine indefinitely, the heat release would break that idea even if we could do that which is impossible.

Yes Nuclear is clean and would solve most of the problems with global warming, but the general population would misuse it for nefarious purposes sadly, the only other way is to power electro magnets remotely from a nuclear plant and have everything from cars to factories to be truly computer guided, the roads would be powered on rails much like trains all cars would communicate with each other to avoid collisions. the only other problem then is food supply creates lots of methane the bigger the population the larger the consumption of meat lots of contributing factors to global warming not just cars and industrial activity. Probably why science is now attempting to grow lab grown meat.

Funny idea but possibly genetically modify Cows so the flatulence releases oxygen

I'm not a fan of nuclear energy. It's very dangerous.

I'm a great fan of wind energy, solar energy, hydroelectric energy, things like that.

I never mentioned combustion engines Nuclear power stations are run on steam.

Why kafti the suns dangerous but without it we certainly would not be here. the above mentioned are not very efficient and time place dependent unless we create dams everywhere that would help partially.

It's not really being suppressed we have just not created it or have funding or intelligence to create it are you thinking dyson sphere ?

Hmm the most efficient are round 40% ? can you link me to an accredited source ? nothing can be 100% efficient too many variables you are always going to get loss because of thermal effects expansion and contraction absorption, my background is electronic engineering so my physics knowledge is based on this, rather than cosmological or astrophysics but a lot of the disciplines merge and easy to cross over into.