Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Science for the non-scientific

franklyn - 28-2-2014 at 19:28


plante1999 - 28-2-2014 at 19:45

I wish there was a thumbs up on sciencemadness, that is one of the post which would have had my seal of approval.

Data shows there is climate change, not for higher temp, anyone noticed all the snow US is getting...

elementcollector1 - 28-2-2014 at 20:02

computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot
predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions
with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.

And yet, they're usually surprisingly accurate. Is this thing seriously comparing complex computer modeling to witchcraft?
It is “extremely likely” that a
warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.

You should say that to the victims of the monumentally increasing amounts of hurricanes and other associated storms.
However, I am confident that history will bear me out,
both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future,

And now, the weather. Brought to you by computer modeling, and canceled by some arrogant idiot who thinks he's better than a computer.
It is not correct to use the terms global warming and climate change as if they were
interchangeable. Global warming is a very specific term meaning exactly what it
says, that the average temperature of the earth is increasing over time.

Hence the change of name in the first place. This would, naturally, allow us to describe a much greater variety of phenomena that seem to be related, regardless of an increase or decrease in temperature.
Let's skip down a bit...
In typical hyperbolic fashion, McKibben, the author of the well-known essay, "The End of Nature", uses the words acid and corrosive as if the ocean will burn off your skin and flesh to the bone if you dare swim in it in 2050. This is just plain fearmongering.

Or, it could represent a drop in pH?
First, one should point out that the ocean is not acidic, it has a pH of 8.1, which is
alkaline, the opposite of acidic.

Second, one should point out that any drop in pH counts as "getting more acidic".
One might therefore imagine that an increase in CO2 in seawater would enhance cal-
cification rather than destroy it. It turns out this is precisely the case.

And yet calcium bicarbonate exists:
Dissolved carbon dioxide (CO2) in rainwater (H2O) reacts with limestone, calcium carbonate (CaCO3) to form soluble calcium bicarbonate (Ca(HCO3)2). - Wikipedia

I could go on for ages - this guy is, quite clearly, an opinion-spouting idiot. Multiple spelling and grammar errors too - what use is Word these days if no one checks their grammar or spelling?

However, I have yet to present my greatest and most powerful argument of all:

Why not?!
Why shouldn't we move away from fossil fuels and focus on clean, green energy? The only (short-term) difference it will make is that your lifestyle will be slightly less convenient, to which I say "Oh no!" with more sarcasm than can be detected by anyone, ever.
Seriously, get a grip. There are no downsides to giving up oil, only upsides. Plus, last month energy-gain positive fusion was realized. In about 20 years, we'll have a fusion plant. In maybe 50 more, the world's energy needs will probably be solved entirely, forever.

So why not move away from oil? Even if the scientific reasoning is wrong, the end result is very, very right.

[Edited on 3-1-2014 by elementcollector1]

macckone - 28-2-2014 at 20:18

Science works by hypothesis as compared to data.
A simple experiment proves that higher carbon dioxide levels
trap more heat and radiate less heat.

Computer models are not witchcraft regardless of what this guy
thinks. Think about that the next time you board a jet which
was designed using computer models.

Metacelsus - 28-2-2014 at 20:22

Quote: Originally posted by elementcollector1  
In about 20 years, we'll have a fusion plant.
[Edited on 3-1-2014 by elementcollector1]

Always 20 years away . . .

Anyway, dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is not a good idea. Even if the effects are unclear, better safe than sorry.

elementcollector1 - 28-2-2014 at 20:31

Yeah... Although the recent breakthrough is nice to have.

My thoughts exactly - don't even take such a stupid, avoidable risk.

Brain&Force - 28-2-2014 at 22:12

Quote: Originally posted by plante1999  
I wish there was a thumbs up on sciencemadness, that is one of the post which would have had my seal of approval.

Data shows there is climate change, not for higher temp, anyone noticed all the snow US is getting...

Just because it's getting colder now doesn't mean global warming has stopped. Take a look at this.

There are some odd data points that don't fit in the big picture, but these are miniscule compared to the decadal average, shown here.

And here's the annual average:

There's a significant warming trend. Yes, pauses do exist between warming periods, but we're still warming up. There is no debate here - just cold, hard facts. Scientists agree (even though the American public may not):

Please note: There is a graphic going around showing only 52% of American Meterological Society members agree about global warming. This survey is flawed because it asks meterologists, not climate scientists. Meterologists don't look at climate as much as they do at weather, a short term prediction.

And even in the highly unlikely circumstance that global warming is not anthropogenic, it's still a good idea to cut down on our emissions and switch to cleaner power sources (solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric, hydrogen). They're well within our reach.

"I can show you a live cobra, and you don't have to believe it exists. The fact that the cobra exists is already established. Of course, if I really need to prove to you that it exists, the easy way for me to do it is to let it strike you." -Me

I don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. The evidence for it is undeniable, so why do I need to?

[Edited on 1.3.2014 by Brain&Force]

plante1999 - 1-3-2014 at 04:42

You know that in the past, long long ago, there as been two glaciation, theses did not suddenly happened, at first temperature increased (and probably CO2 although I'm unsure). After a certain increase, it suddenly switched.

Read a bit about history between Environment freaks texts and a chem book.