The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:13PM
(41 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:13PM (#807182)
On the other hand, more water moisture in the air tends to increase the number of clouds.
Also, the bible says there was light before the sun. I suspect that is because when the story was devised the entire earth had been covered by clouds for generations and people forgot what the sun looked like.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:34PM
(26 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:34PM (#807198)
The bible says a lot of insightful things actually. If you imagine that possibly the authors had some scientific knowledge perhaps from an antedeluvian society, it's quite possible that there was light before the sun. The sun wouldn't just suddenly start fusing one day. It would get warmer and and warmer from convective forces long before fusion set in and this would provide light.
I find the "they moved upon the surface of the deep (waters)", to be particular poignant. The sun is made of hydrogen, hydrogen is the primary component of H20. The Sun's fusion ignition would have sent shockwaves through the intra-stellar medium and this would have caused hydrogen and oxygen to link together forming water. So it is possible that the real "let there be light" event did set in motion the events pretty much exactly like the bible says. As for 7 days, time is relative. A day could last a billion years in a steep enough gravity well and there is some indication that a blackhole or other hyper massive object did move through our solar system in it's early days as evidenced by the present orbits of Jupiter, Saturn and the other gas giants which by all accounts ought to be much, much closer to the sun.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:10PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:10PM (#807225)
The AC you responded to speculated that the bible was the result of "lost knowledge" from an antediluvean society. You can think of it exactly like learning about the big bang from a fake news source.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:56PM
(12 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:56PM (#807253)
There is a serious problem with the moderation on this site. The above post is +5 insightful even though they clearly did not comprehend the post they are referencing before writing that.
The A/C post above is modded +1 Interesting even though it starts
The bible says a lot of insightful things actually...
and then speculates about some forgotten race of super-scientists who understood the molecular structure of water and left the knowledge to the ancient Hebrews who wrote it down in Genesis thereby giving a scientific basis for the Bible.
Yes, there truly are some weirdos on this site. It's partly what keeps me coming back to be fair.
What possibilities? That a lost race of super-scientists existed? Well, yes, it's fun to think about those sorts of things, and I enjoy sci-fi as much as the next nerd, but let's not pretend it's anything other than fiction.
The Bible has nothing coherent to say about the origins of the solar system, let along the origins of our galaxy or universe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @12:56AM
(4 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday February 27 2019, @12:56AM (#807386)
The original post about this speculated that there was some antediluvian civilization that had some theory about the sun consisting of a fluid that started glowing at some point. This was then simplified, passed down and recorded as the beginning of the book of genesis. Just look at how much gibberish was generated by people who don't understand stuff about a physics paper here: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=19/02/25/2037223 [soylentnews.org]
Same thing on a larger scale.
All the responses here seem to be from people without reading comprehension who think the AC proposed the bible was the word of god or generated by super-beings or something.
The bible says a lot of insightful things actually. If you imagine that possibly the authors had some scientific knowledge perhaps from an antedeluvian society...
For which there is no evidence, and the Bible has nothing to say on the matter either.
Then he goes on:
I find the "they moved upon the surface of the deep (waters)", to be particular poignant. The sun is made of hydrogen, hydrogen is the primary component of H20. The Sun's fusion ignition would have sent shockwaves through the intra-stellar medium and this would have caused hydrogen and oxygen to link together forming water. So it is possible that the real "let there be light" event did set in motion the events pretty much exactly like the bible says.
Which just a desperate effort to shoehorn god into something the ancient Hebrews knew nothing about.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @01:33AM
(2 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday February 27 2019, @01:33AM (#807409)
No. It is called abduction. They speculated on a possible explanation for an odd thing they read in the bible. This is absolutely a legitimate scientific activity.
Actually it is better that usual since they didn't then take their own speculative explanation to be verified by the same info used to generate it like 99% of the "science" articles posted here do.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @02:25AM
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday February 27 2019, @02:25AM (#807427)
Why is that?
To me the funny part of this conversation is I am probably more anti-christian than anyone else in this thread. I will not step foot in a church for any funeral or wedding or other reason ever.
Still, I can understand attempts to make sense of the strange old stories written in the bible. Other people here have a mental block to doing that.
One would think that the Big Bang was the hottest brightest event in the universe. So bright we should see a brilliantly white sky instead of dark space.
Which brings me to the topic of that background radiation. That IS the brilliant "white light" of the big bang. But with space expanding, the wavelengths of that light get stretched out, and thus we see them at a lower frequency, and hence the background radiation.
The frequency of the background radiation, the rate of the expansion of space, and the color of light at the big bang would all be related.
-- The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @09:58PM
(3 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday February 26 2019, @09:58PM (#807289)
The big bang is a theory come up with by a Jesuit priest to support the catholic church's interpretation of the bible. It is even less science-based than what was proposed by the AC (basically a mangled lay account of some ancient theory).
Exactly this. The big-bang theory is basically creationism masquerading as science and I've always thought it was bullshit, even in childhood. Now, if it were a periodic process that consisted of an infinite number of big-bang big-crunch cycles, I would be more likely to believe it.
Real scientists make no statements about "The Big Bang" as an *event* that happened. They might make comments about how well the "Big Bang Theory" explains the observed universe very accurately, which is true, but the Big Bang Theory says nothing about a Big Bang, what it may, or may not, have been. If in the company of non-adversarial non-scientists, they may use the term as a convenient shorthand for that which they don't know about, but that's because there's no way of saying anything scientific in only two words.
-- Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
Commercial jet traffic con-trails have measurably increased solar energy reflection, I think there was a study done on the post-9/11 climate effects of the massive flight cancellation - and it was more than just measurable.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:55PM
(4 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:55PM (#807250)
Therefore to combat the cloud deficit, we must fly more planes to make more contrails. Who knew that all those celebrities flying to climate conferences in their private planes really were saving the planet?
I think the implication is more that: the jets are moderating global warming, and when the economy tanks and/or civilization collapses that mitigation will stop and give the planet another kick toward the hot side. Sure, their CO2 emissions will stop, but that is a slower acting effect than contrail dissipation.
Sure, their CO2 emissions will stop, but that is a slower acting effect than contrail dissipation.
Keep in mind that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gases and the next biggest one, methane, has a short lifespan in atmosphere. Not as short as contrail dissipation, but it's still a half life of under a decade [scitechnol.com].
Yep, so stop growing so many hamburgers and their flatulence will dissipate within a decade.
I had a "greenie" activist accost me on a Norwegian train platform in 1988 about this very topic: "You Americans" eating so many hamburgers is a real problem. I bought her rainforest postcard because it was pretty, and fairly priced, before she even started going on about it; but once she heard my accent she just wouldn't shut up.
Revelation 16:8-9 [biblegateway.com] says: [8] The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was allowed to scorch people with fire. [9] They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.
I don't know if 12 degrees warming qualifies or not. :-)
As for light before the sun, I would point out that the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. Gen 1:14-19 [biblegateway.com] So there were "days" before the sun.
I would also point out that the creation story follows a pattern, which I think is more important and probably the entire point of chapter 1. The pattern goes like this . . .
God said X . . . and it was so.
God said Y . . . and it was so.
God said Z . . . and it was so.
Like versus of poetry.
In verse 27 it says God created them Male and Female. But the story of Eve doesn't happen in chapter 1.
Genesis was written by Moses, a long time after Adam. You can trace the time and genealogy from Adam to Moses and see that this was a long time later. In 1986 I made a chart of this in classic MacDraw.
-- The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @11:43PM
(3 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday February 26 2019, @11:43PM (#807339)
It's funny how only protestant Christians take the old testament creation stories literally. The Jews, the originators of the old testament, and the religion from which the old testament was poached, see it as allegory, as does the Catholic church (well in modern times anyway).
Even more hilarious, taken literally the new testament basically contradicts the old testament. And the new testament is basically all about loving, and spreading love. Yet, these fundamentalist Christians seem to prefer the old testament authoritarian controlling and punishing God model. So they ignore Jesus' teachings, and basically do the exact opposite while arguing inconsequential minutiae and literal interpretation of something that neither has any bearing to their lives in the physical world, nor to their spiritual growth.
Whenever I see 'Christians' 'in the news', they embody all the activities and attitudes that are specifically frowned upon in the new testament. Gandhi was more Christian than these 'Christians'.
To be fair, A/C, the vengeful old testament loving Protestant Christian arseholes you describe are a pretty American phenomenon.
They do exist in other countries, but we've never let them ever gain any real power, so they don't try to inflict their awful closeted lifestyle on the rest of us.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @03:25AM
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday February 27 2019, @03:25AM (#807447)
The way it works is you are free to assume whatever you want. In the long run those with better assumptions will acquire more resources more often, etc. Whatever assumption most helps with that is "correct" for the current circumstances.
Or it's a metaphor written a very long time after everyone who could have theoretically lived through it was dead. Whether you believe Moses wrote it as is tradition or that it was written by several people between the sixth and seventh centuries BC, the story would have been thousands of years old given standard Judaeo-Christian beliefs. That's a hell of a long time for a mostly orally preserved story to even survive, much less remain error free. And that's assuming the original story was factual instead of a metaphoric parable told for a specific purpose.
That line of thinking aside, said deity is extremely big on free will and in fact bases eternal judgment on what is done with that free will. That does not at all jive with overriding free will to play developmental editor to a book, no matter how important. Try running down a true, solid translation of Exodus 22:18 if you want to see a good example free will as it applies to the contents of the Bible.
How does someone who is in Russia's pocket start a nuclear war with Russia?
Russia? Nah, as long as the Trump → Putin fluffing continues, that (probably) won't happen. But, there's North Korea. And Pakistan. India. China. Etc. Plus, who's to say little mushroom dick won't just lob one at $terrorists just "because."
Should he be so inclined, hopefully, the people around him will tackle him to the floor before he gets to the briefcase, etc.
Hopefully.
-- Have an urge to follow the masses? Careful: Sometimes, the "m" is silent.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @11:51PM
(1 child)
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday February 26 2019, @11:51PM (#807344)
Actually, from Trumps actions during his term so far, it's more likely that he'd be tackling some war-monger to the ground. He's the kind of guy that would rather avoid consequences that would come back to bite (or radiate) him in the ass.
And 'lobbing one at the $terrorists' seems be something that all the other war-mongers in previous governments are more likely to do. They definitely started more wars, invaded more countries, droned more $terrorists. I'm not sure why people are worried that Trump would be anymore likely to start a global thermonuclear war than Hillary would have been.
President Clinton is the reason we have those internment camps for migrants coming across the border. Whether right or wrong, every president since it was started by Clinton had children in cages to separate them from people who might not be their parents, to prevent abuse. It's wrong and it should be fixed/done different, but the practice is a continuation of old practices and not something new. I'm not saying Cook doesn;t also share some of the blame, but in the case of the border you had three guys following the procedures put in place by President Clinton.
After an extended reading of no less than three Russian novels, I'm thoroughly convinced Putin is guilt ridden over accidentally running over a cat and successfully fleeing the scene during his service at the KGB. Now, following volumes-long excruciating monologues filled with gray imaginary, masochism and alcoholism, he developed into a fundamentalist misanthrope culminating in a desire to end it all through the Power Of The Atom.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:27PM
(16 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:27PM (#807192)
For those of us who genuinely support the idea of a warmer earth this is great news! The current ice age can end earlier and we can get back to having a warm, comfortable, ice free planet with enough CO2 that forests can thrive, thereby providing the natural carbon sink we've been missing.
With more plants we naturally get more plant eaters. With more planter eaters we naturally get more plant eater, eaters. Which means no more hungry humans.
I for one welcome a warm tropical earth!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @11:04PM
(15 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday February 26 2019, @11:04PM (#807314)
There's no warranty humans among many other species will survive. Heck, even less warranty the human civilization will.
People have managed to survive and populate every craggy crock, every desiccated sand pit, every icebound arctic wasteland, and everywhere in between even before the industrial revolution, and we've gone on to overpopulate all the aforementioned since then plus go to places totally unsuitable for us (under water, into orbit/moon). Global warming won't wipe out humans -- it will cause a lot of death and disorder -- but humans have long excelled at the ultimate adaption -- that of adapting the environment to suit us rather than vice versa.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @02:19AM
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday February 27 2019, @02:19AM (#807426)
Why do we seem unable to stop global warming, then?
Because no one actually cares about it... If people who believed in the CO2 problem wanted to actually stop it there would be a movement towards near 100% nuclear power. I don't see that coming from anyone who claims to be afraid of CO2. It seems if they can't get their proposed increased spying and taxes as part of the solution they could care less.
Actually, the only people to propose this actual solution are those who don't really put much stock in the climate models anyway. To them it is a "solution" to a non-problem.
I'm sitting here in my garage with an ambient temperature close to freezing wearing a double layer of fleece, shirt, tshirt, long johns, warm socks, and two knit caps -- I also have an infrared heater about a meter to my right and warm latte I just made. I wouldn't be typing this on my garage computer without those adjustments to the environment.
I wouldn't be typing this on my garage computer without those adjustments to thethe local environment that I can have control over.
Because many bird species build their nest and insulate it against bad weather and many animals dig themselves a burrow - i.e. demonstrate the same level of "control over the environment" as you do.
Because many bird species build their nest and insulate it against bad weather and many animals dig themselves a burrow
And humans make an advanced technological society that allows them to pack 4 orders of magnitude more people in a space than a hunter gather society could manage. For example, Kwun Tong, a part of Hong Kong packs 57k people [www.gov.hk] per square km while hunter gather societies manage somewhere around 3 people [persquaremile.com] per square km.
And humans make an advanced technological society that allows them to pack 4 orders of magnitude more people in a space than a hunter gather society could manage.
It is still local environ adjusting.
Hang on.... You aren't actually saying that "humans manage to alter the environment at planetary scale", are you now, khallow? Because if you do, you are in a very dangerous territory my friend - it's only one step away from admitting both AGW and reversing it are in fact possible. You know, like in "Anthropogenic GW". Just think the devastating impact this admission may have to your psyche, then slooowly, sloooowly back away, there be dragons here.
The global trade and logistic chain that makes that possible is not, however.
Hang on.... You aren't actually saying that "humans manage to alter the environment at planetary scale", are you now, khallow?
Clearly I have never said anything remotely like that! For example
[jimtheowl:] the current area of urbanization is 'less than' 1% of the Earth's surface
[khallow:]The actual land area used for human activities is far greater than that. You have about a third devoted to agriculture and pasture land. You have somewhere around 5% used for the road system.
Or here [soylentnews.org] where I deny multiple times (five cited) that global climate change is a thing. Such as:
I agree that global warming is happening right now and that it's to a great degree caused by humans.
Or the numerous times I rank [soylentnews.org] global habitat destruction as a bigger problem than global climate change.
As to the Leap Manifesto, it completely ignores that there are seven billion people on this planet and not all of them have the standard of living or relatively low fertility that Canada enjoys. The Manifesto merely assumes that global warming is the most important problem out there, ignoring the more important problems such as overpopulation, poverty, corruption, and arable land and habitat destruction. Petroleum remains a tool for successfully fixing bigger problems than global warming. It would be good to remember this.
Clearly a denial that humans have any sort of global impact at all. Clearly.
We have had this discussion a number of times. We have several solutions out there for Climate Change, all that matters now is which decision we choose and when. Takyon posted some links a while back from an early adopter of the Climate Change stuff where rather than just talk doom and gloom he bothered trying to find ways to fix it. His suggestion was 500 billion over the next 80 years to disburse something like a gram of Sulfur per ton of CO2 to break down the built up CO2. It would require something like eight jets running continuously for the next 80 years and revert the climate back to before we started our long track of emissions. This is currently the cheapest solution, although obviously not the best. Every year the costs to mitigate climate change will become less as tech growth seems to be growing faster than the problems being presented. The only solution leftists are willing to go along with is getting rid of all the cattle, getting rid of the personal vehicles, getting rid of luxury goods, living on reduced power, not having kids (but promoting others to have kids), and then committing suicide. BP in all of their greed probably already has a solution, and is just waiting for the right time to force us to buy it.
His suggestion was 500 billion over the next 80 years to disburse something like a gram of Sulfur per ton of CO2 to break down the built up CO2.
Exactly how creating acid rain and depleting the ozone layer in the process actually addresses the core problem: too much CO2?
Are we looking to "solutions" just to allow us burning dinojuice a little longer? What when these patches come to bite our head off?
The only solution leftists are willing to go along with is getting rid of all the cattle, getting rid of the personal vehicles, getting rid of luxury goods, living on reduced power, not having kids (but promoting others to have kids), and then committing suicide. BP in all of their greed probably already has a solution, and is just waiting for the right time to force us to buy it.
Then you should read your own party's talking points. I graduated high-school back in 07 and they pushed everything in the paragraph you think is fake hard. If you don't walk or take the bus you are evil. If you want kids you are evil because we should just take immigrants instead. If you are playing video games you are evil for wasting electricity.
>acid rain That's why I said it's not a good idea right now and needs more work. The guy's research claims that because the process is over 80 years the effects of acid rain would be negligible but I didn't read through all of his research on that. But at least he is trying instead of trying to shove faaxism down my throat.
Then you should read your own party's talking points... If you want kids you are evil because we should just take immigrants instead.
As an immigrant from Europe in Australia as I am, kindly enlighten me what party would that be?
But at least he is trying instead of trying to shove faaxism down my throat.
Yes and his efforts allow you to sleep well at night without doing anything. And this is important because clearly you are the whole reason this world exists and you should live your life free of any responsibility.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:14PM
(1 child)
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:14PM (#807229)
The beavers are already melting the permafrost. They have been melting it for awhile as they build their dams hoping for a better more comfortable life for themselves and their children.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:55PM
(5 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:55PM (#807208)
It is a model of a flat earth without any day or night exposed to a sun that is suddenly ~ 100 W/m^2 brighter (decreased clouds is the exact same as a dimmer sun to this model):
In our simulations, we assume that the implied energy export is distributed homogeneously across the globe [...] As stratocumulus clouds cover 18.5% of the oceans between 5° and 35° latitude in both hemispheres, and this subtropical ocean area makes up 35% of Earth’s surface area 11 , we estimate γ = 0.185 × 0.35 = 6.5%. [...] Subtropical marine stratocumulus clouds cover about 6.5% of the Earth’s surface and, where they occur, reduce the solar radiative energy flux absorbed in the climate system by ~110 W m −2 , compared to about a 10 W m −2 reduction by scattered cumulus 22,28 . If we assume a climate sensitivity parameter of 1.2 K (W m −2 ) −1 (as for the more sensitive among current GCMs 27 ), this implies (110 − 10) W m −2 × 6.5% × 1.2 K (W m −2 ) −1 ≈ 8 K global-mean surface warming when subtropical marine stratocumulus break up. [...] The CO 2 level at which the instability occurs depends on how large- scale dynamics change with climate, which is heuristically parameterized in our simulations and hence is uncertain. [...] TOA insolation is specified as the diurnally averaged insolation in July. For a total solar irradiance of 1,365 W m −2 , this gives an effective solar zenith angle of 69.9° and an incoming shortwave flux of S s ↓ = 471 W m − 2 into the subtropical LES domain (assumed to be located at 30 °N).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:00PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:00PM (#807213)
*decreased clouds is the exact same as a brighter sun to this model
It is a model of a flat earth without any day or night
I don't see anything in the quoted to support those assertions of yours. You care to elaborate?
Yes, the Earth will always define a flat cross-section in the solar radiation flux and, first approximation - ignoring the elliptical orbit around the Sun, that cross-section will always receive solar energy. That's as simple and true as saying 'There's always daytime for roughy half the Earth surface'
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @12:20AM
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday February 27 2019, @12:20AM (#807365)
Yes. Instead of simulating a changing insolation they took the average of the earth's night and day and simulated a constant insolation of that amount. It is a standard simplification known to cause problems with these types of models (eg predict a body at the same distance as the earth from the sun without a greenhouse effect would have a temperature of 255K when the moon is at 150 K).
The current level is ~ 400ppm, with an annual increase of ~3 ppm. The first derivative of the annual increase is, unfortunately, positive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:19PM
(1 child)
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:19PM (#807232)
The first derivative of the annual increase is, unfortunately, positive.
The first derivative in these models was zero. They just set it to different values and ran the simulation until steady state.
Also, they say the results were different when they included day/night cycle:
A few simulations with a diurnal cycle (without boosting of the mean-field tendencies, which is difficult to justify in the presence of a diurnal cycle). Again, the stratocumulus instability occurred. However, because the overall surface energy balance with a diurnal cycle is not the same as with diurnally averaged insolation (principally because stratocumulus cover is reduced during the day), OHU or other parameters need to be adjusted in such simula- tions to obtain a realistic SST. This makes one-on-one comparisons with the results reported here difficult.
Normally when I come across a supposedly scientific paper that says something along the lines of "when we improve our models, and remove the fudge factors, we obtained results different from the ones we're publishing", I tend to just throw the paper into the bin.
-- Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
More alarmist nonsense created by computer generated fraud using rigged computer models. Anyway, if you wanted to scale back CO2 you would do it in China where CO2 use is growing more quickly. China gets to increase its CO2 use. Its not been growing much in the US. Climate change regulations mainly seem designed to be an excuse for giant wealth transfer from the US to China.
Also, rarely do you ever see the left proposing sane and reasonable things that could be done like high density yet affordable supertall buildings with housing, shopping and employment located within. In fact every Leftist company from Google and Amazon seems happy to invest in corporate headquarters located where people often have to drive 20 miles into work . Neither if Leftists actually believed in this stuff would they be investing big bucks in uber expensive real estate developments in New York or other coastal areas. Most leftists jet all over the place in carbon burning planes as if the internet and teleconferencing dont exist. How many computer, IT and open source conference do people continent hop to go to? Lots. They talk the talk but dont walk the walk in their own lives. The climate rules they want dont apply to them, only to other people beneath them. Thousands of people jump on a huge jet airliner and luxury sedans to go to some IPCC climate change conference.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Snow on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:52PM
(8 children)
This argument sums up why I always piss in the pool.
That fat mother fucker over there is pissing in the pool, so why can't I? Plus, if they didn't want me to piss in the pool, why did they make the bathrooms so far away?
At least if I piss in the pool, I get to enjoy the moment of warmth.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @12:22AM
(2 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday February 27 2019, @12:22AM (#807367)
Conspiracy-minded wackos usually don't distinguish between "left" and "right". The consipriacy is that these are both controlled opposition meant to distract people from being robbed by the federal reserve preferentially passing out fresh money and other scams.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:13PM (41 children)
On the other hand, more water moisture in the air tends to increase the number of clouds.
Also, the bible says there was light before the sun. I suspect that is because when the story was devised the entire earth had been covered by clouds for generations and people forgot what the sun looked like.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:34PM (26 children)
The bible says a lot of insightful things actually.
If you imagine that possibly the authors had some scientific knowledge perhaps from an antedeluvian society, it's quite possible that there was light before the sun. The sun wouldn't just suddenly start fusing one day. It would get warmer and and warmer from convective forces long before fusion set in and this would provide light.
I find the "they moved upon the surface of the deep (waters)", to be particular poignant. The sun is made of hydrogen, hydrogen is the primary component of H20. The Sun's fusion ignition would have sent shockwaves through the intra-stellar medium and this would have caused hydrogen and oxygen to link together forming water. So it is possible that the real "let there be light" event did set in motion the events pretty much exactly like the bible says. As for 7 days, time is relative. A day could last a billion years in a steep enough gravity well and there is some indication that a blackhole or other hyper massive object did move through our solar system in it's early days as evidenced by the present orbits of Jupiter, Saturn and the other gas giants which by all accounts ought to be much, much closer to the sun.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Snow on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:54PM (25 children)
Are you fucking kidding me?
Who was alive to record the ignition of the Sun?
The Bible has many words that say many things. Even a broken clock is correct twice per day.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:58PM (21 children)
Different AC.
Who was alive to observe the big bang? Just because people thought something happened doesn't mean someone was around to see it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snow on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:04PM (19 children)
The Big Bang is a _Theory_ based on the observation of background radiation and an observation that almost everything is moving away from us.
The Bible, on the other hand, is largely a work of fiction that people try to shoehorn real world historical events into.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:10PM
The AC you responded to speculated that the bible was the result of "lost knowledge" from an antediluvean society. You can think of it exactly like learning about the big bang from a fake news source.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:56PM (12 children)
There is a serious problem with the moderation on this site. The above post is +5 insightful even though they clearly did not comprehend the post they are referencing before writing that.
(Score: 3, Funny) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday February 26 2019, @09:48PM (11 children)
The A/C post above is modded +1 Interesting even though it starts
and then speculates about some forgotten race of super-scientists who understood the molecular structure of water and left the knowledge to the ancient Hebrews who wrote it down in Genesis thereby giving a scientific basis for the Bible.
Yes, there truly are some weirdos on this site. It's partly what keeps me coming back to be fair.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @09:52PM (10 children)
You don't find thinking about that possibility interesting?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday February 26 2019, @11:29PM (7 children)
What possibilities? That a lost race of super-scientists existed? Well, yes, it's fun to think about those sorts of things, and I enjoy sci-fi as much as the next nerd, but let's not pretend it's anything other than fiction.
The Bible has nothing coherent to say about the origins of the solar system, let along the origins of our galaxy or universe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @11:53PM (6 children)
What is super about the theory? Sounds like a theory anyone could have come up with in the last couple hundred years.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday February 27 2019, @12:44AM (5 children)
OK, I have stopped understanding what you're getting at now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @12:56AM (4 children)
The original post about this speculated that there was some antediluvian civilization that had some theory about the sun consisting of a fluid that started glowing at some point. This was then simplified, passed down and recorded as the beginning of the book of genesis. Just look at how much gibberish was generated by people who don't understand stuff about a physics paper here: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=19/02/25/2037223 [soylentnews.org]
Same thing on a larger scale.
All the responses here seem to be from people without reading comprehension who think the AC proposed the bible was the word of god or generated by super-beings or something.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday February 27 2019, @01:23AM (3 children)
Yeah, the bits in the OP that caught my eye were:
For which there is no evidence, and the Bible has nothing to say on the matter either.
Then he goes on:
Which just a desperate effort to shoehorn god into something the ancient Hebrews knew nothing about.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @01:33AM (2 children)
No. It is called abduction. They speculated on a possible explanation for an odd thing they read in the bible. This is absolutely a legitimate scientific activity.
Actually it is better that usual since they didn't then take their own speculative explanation to be verified by the same info used to generate it like 99% of the "science" articles posted here do.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday February 27 2019, @06:26AM (1 child)
How could any of that be a possible explanation for what they read in Genesis? I'm curious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @10:47AM
Sorry, but you seem to be incapable of comprehending the original post. There is really no reason to be confused like you are, it was quite clear.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday February 27 2019, @01:42AM (1 child)
If you weren't most likely a millennial, I would say you'd been exposed to way too much Robert E. Howard.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @02:25AM
Why is that?
To me the funny part of this conversation is I am probably more anti-christian than anyone else in this thread. I will not step foot in a church for any funeral or wedding or other reason ever.
Still, I can understand attempts to make sense of the strange old stories written in the bible. Other people here have a mental block to doing that.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday February 26 2019, @09:55PM (4 children)
The Big Bang explains a great deal.
One would think that the Big Bang was the hottest brightest event in the universe. So bright we should see a brilliantly white sky instead of dark space.
Which brings me to the topic of that background radiation. That IS the brilliant "white light" of the big bang. But with space expanding, the wavelengths of that light get stretched out, and thus we see them at a lower frequency, and hence the background radiation.
The frequency of the background radiation, the rate of the expansion of space, and the color of light at the big bang would all be related.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @09:58PM (3 children)
The big bang is a theory come up with by a Jesuit priest to support the catholic church's interpretation of the bible. It is even less science-based than what was proposed by the AC (basically a mangled lay account of some ancient theory).
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday February 27 2019, @01:03AM (2 children)
Exactly this. The big-bang theory is basically creationism masquerading as science and I've always thought it was bullshit, even in childhood. Now, if it were a periodic process that consisted of an infinite number of big-bang big-crunch cycles, I would be more likely to believe it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @03:03AM
Oh like the Buddhist cycle of birth and rebirth? Much more believeable than some Christian claptrap. Thanks.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday February 27 2019, @02:46PM
That is surprising considering how widely accepted the big bang theory appears to be.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday February 27 2019, @03:02PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday February 26 2019, @09:50PM (2 children)
I think in one or more of the major prophets, God says he was. I don't have a reference handy. Also in the book of Job, IIRC.
An uninitialized variable sometimes has the correct value.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @03:05AM (1 child)
That's why I set all default values to zero... just in case the C++ forgets to initialize them.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @06:59AM
I set them all to 17.4
If you can't handle putting in the correct value before using it then sucks to be you.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:18PM (5 children)
Commercial jet traffic con-trails have measurably increased solar energy reflection, I think there was a study done on the post-9/11 climate effects of the massive flight cancellation - and it was more than just measurable.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:55PM (4 children)
Therefore to combat the cloud deficit, we must fly more planes to make more contrails. Who knew that all those celebrities flying to climate conferences in their private planes really were saving the planet?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 26 2019, @09:52PM (3 children)
I think the implication is more that: the jets are moderating global warming, and when the economy tanks and/or civilization collapses that mitigation will stop and give the planet another kick toward the hot side. Sure, their CO2 emissions will stop, but that is a slower acting effect than contrail dissipation.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @07:01AM
Yep. It's like being too close to a bonfire. You can block some of the heat by throwing some more wood on it, but it's a very temporary solution.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 27 2019, @01:14PM (1 child)
Keep in mind that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gases and the next biggest one, methane, has a short lifespan in atmosphere. Not as short as contrail dissipation, but it's still a half life of under a decade [scitechnol.com].
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday February 27 2019, @03:15PM
Yep, so stop growing so many hamburgers and their flatulence will dissipate within a decade.
I had a "greenie" activist accost me on a Norwegian train platform in 1988 about this very topic: "You Americans" eating so many hamburgers is a real problem. I bought her rainforest postcard because it was pretty, and fairly priced, before she even started going on about it; but once she heard my accent she just wouldn't shut up.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by DannyB on Tuesday February 26 2019, @09:45PM (2 children)
Revelation 16:8-9 [biblegateway.com] says: [8] The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was allowed to scorch people with fire. [9] They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.
I don't know if 12 degrees warming qualifies or not. :-)
As for light before the sun, I would point out that the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. Gen 1:14-19 [biblegateway.com] So there were "days" before the sun.
I would also point out that the creation story follows a pattern, which I think is more important and probably the entire point of chapter 1. The pattern goes like this . . .
God said X . . . and it was so.
God said Y . . . and it was so.
God said Z . . . and it was so.
Like versus of poetry.
In verse 27 it says God created them Male and Female. But the story of Eve doesn't happen in chapter 1.
Genesis was written by Moses, a long time after Adam. You can trace the time and genealogy from Adam to Moses and see that this was a long time later. In 1986 I made a chart of this in classic MacDraw.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @09:56PM (1 child)
No one who looks to the bible for hints of antediluvian science cares one whit for Revelations.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday February 26 2019, @09:58PM
That's Revelation, singular.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @11:43PM (3 children)
It's funny how only protestant Christians take the old testament creation stories literally. The Jews, the originators of the old testament, and the religion from which the old testament was poached, see it as allegory, as does the Catholic church (well in modern times anyway).
Even more hilarious, taken literally the new testament basically contradicts the old testament. And the new testament is basically all about loving, and spreading love. Yet, these fundamentalist Christians seem to prefer the old testament authoritarian controlling and punishing God model. So they ignore Jesus' teachings, and basically do the exact opposite while arguing inconsequential minutiae and literal interpretation of something that neither has any bearing to their lives in the physical world, nor to their spiritual growth.
Whenever I see 'Christians' 'in the news', they embody all the activities and attitudes that are specifically frowned upon in the new testament. Gandhi was more Christian than these 'Christians'.
(Score: 4, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday February 27 2019, @01:38AM
To be fair, A/C, the vengeful old testament loving Protestant Christian arseholes you describe are a pretty American phenomenon.
They do exist in other countries, but we've never let them ever gain any real power, so they don't try to inflict their awful closeted lifestyle on the rest of us.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @03:13AM (1 child)
You sound like one of them fluffy bunny Christians who want to interpret the Bible when in fact if you read you will see the Bible is perfect and contains ZERO contradictions [landoverbaptist.net].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @03:25AM
The way it works is you are free to assume whatever you want. In the long run those with better assumptions will acquire more resources more often, etc. Whatever assumption most helps with that is "correct" for the current circumstances.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 27 2019, @02:25AM
Or it's a metaphor written a very long time after everyone who could have theoretically lived through it was dead. Whether you believe Moses wrote it as is tradition or that it was written by several people between the sixth and seventh centuries BC, the story would have been thousands of years old given standard Judaeo-Christian beliefs. That's a hell of a long time for a mostly orally preserved story to even survive, much less remain error free. And that's assuming the original story was factual instead of a metaphoric parable told for a specific purpose.
That line of thinking aside, said deity is extremely big on free will and in fact bases eternal judgment on what is done with that free will. That does not at all jive with overriding free will to play developmental editor to a book, no matter how important. Try running down a true, solid translation of Exodus 22:18 if you want to see a good example free will as it applies to the contents of the Bible.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:27PM (15 children)
#VOTETRUMP2020
compiling...
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Sulla on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:49PM (14 children)
How does someone who is in Russia's pocket start a nuclear war with Russia?
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Snow on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:56PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbM2F-cfN0A [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:09PM
Indeed, why would he start a nuclear war with Russia when he's offering the entire country up to them on a silver platter.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:09PM
How does someone who is in Russia's pocket start a nuclear war with Russia?
I have no idea. But, if anyone can figure it out, it's Trump!
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:56PM (2 children)
Russia? Nah, as long as the Trump → Putin fluffing continues, that (probably) won't happen. But, there's North Korea. And Pakistan. India. China. Etc. Plus, who's to say little mushroom dick won't just lob one at $terrorists just "because."
Should he be so inclined, hopefully, the people around him will tackle him to the floor before he gets to the briefcase, etc.
Hopefully.
--
Have an urge to follow the masses? Careful:
Sometimes, the "m" is silent.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @11:51PM (1 child)
Actually, from Trumps actions during his term so far, it's more likely that he'd be tackling some war-monger to the ground. He's the kind of guy that would rather avoid consequences that would come back to bite (or radiate) him in the ass.
And 'lobbing one at the $terrorists' seems be something that all the other war-mongers in previous governments are more likely to do. They definitely started more wars, invaded more countries, droned more $terrorists. I'm not sure why people are worried that Trump would be anymore likely to start a global thermonuclear war than Hillary would have been.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @11:55PM
Because the people who think that are drones who believe whatever they heard in late night comedy is a fact.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Tuesday February 26 2019, @09:47PM (6 children)
I hear that India and Pakistan might get into a nuclear war. Which might kill over a billion people.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @11:53PM (5 children)
You say that like it's a bad thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @07:46AM (4 children)
Dude think of the 24/7 TV coverage... starving dying brown people day after day after day. BORING.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday February 27 2019, @02:48PM (3 children)
I suppose it is boring now that we've seen Trump's internment camps for non-white illegal immigrants.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday March 06 2019, @04:25AM (2 children)
Who is more responsible for the evils of Apple? Cook or Jobs? If you blame Jobs then you should also be blaming Clinton.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday March 06 2019, @02:49PM (1 child)
I would blame Jobs.
Now I am definitely interested in why Clinton (which one?) would also share the blame?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday March 06 2019, @03:16PM
President Clinton is the reason we have those internment camps for migrants coming across the border. Whether right or wrong, every president since it was started by Clinton had children in cages to separate them from people who might not be their parents, to prevent abuse. It's wrong and it should be fixed/done different, but the practice is a continuation of old practices and not something new. I'm not saying Cook doesn;t also share some of the blame, but in the case of the border you had three guys following the procedures put in place by President Clinton.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Funny) by RamiK on Wednesday February 27 2019, @03:47AM
After an extended reading of no less than three Russian novels, I'm thoroughly convinced Putin is guilt ridden over accidentally running over a cat and successfully fleeing the scene during his service at the KGB. Now, following volumes-long excruciating monologues filled with gray imaginary, masochism and alcoholism, he developed into a fundamentalist misanthrope culminating in a desire to end it all through the Power Of The Atom.
compiling...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:27PM (16 children)
For those of us who genuinely support the idea of a warmer earth this is great news!
The current ice age can end earlier and we can get back to having a warm, comfortable, ice free planet with enough CO2 that forests can thrive, thereby providing the natural carbon sink we've been missing.
With more plants we naturally get more plant eaters.
With more planter eaters we naturally get more plant eater, eaters.
Which means no more hungry humans.
I for one welcome a warm tropical earth!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @11:04PM (15 children)
There's no warranty humans among many other species will survive.
Heck, even less warranty the human civilization will.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by hemocyanin on Tuesday February 26 2019, @11:50PM (14 children)
People have managed to survive and populate every craggy crock, every desiccated sand pit, every icebound arctic wasteland, and everywhere in between even before the industrial revolution, and we've gone on to overpopulate all the aforementioned since then plus go to places totally unsuitable for us (under water, into orbit/moon). Global warming won't wipe out humans -- it will cause a lot of death and disorder -- but humans have long excelled at the ultimate adaption -- that of adapting the environment to suit us rather than vice versa.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 27 2019, @01:56AM
---
** "Past performance is not an indication of future outcomes"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday February 27 2019, @02:00AM (12 children)
LOL, ROFL. Oh, the irony.
Why do we seem unable to stop global warming, then?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @02:19AM
Because no one actually cares about it... If people who believed in the CO2 problem wanted to actually stop it there would be a movement towards near 100% nuclear power. I don't see that coming from anyone who claims to be afraid of CO2. It seems if they can't get their proposed increased spying and taxes as part of the solution they could care less.
Actually, the only people to propose this actual solution are those who don't really put much stock in the climate models anyway. To them it is a "solution" to a non-problem.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday February 27 2019, @02:48AM (6 children)
I'm sitting here in my garage with an ambient temperature close to freezing wearing a double layer of fleece, shirt, tshirt, long johns, warm socks, and two knit caps -- I also have an infrared heater about a meter to my right and warm latte I just made. I wouldn't be typing this on my garage computer without those adjustments to the environment.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 27 2019, @03:42AM (5 children)
Because many bird species build their nest and insulate it against bad weather and many animals dig themselves a burrow - i.e. demonstrate the same level of "control over the environment" as you do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 27 2019, @01:29PM (3 children)
And humans make an advanced technological society that allows them to pack 4 orders of magnitude more people in a space than a hunter gather society could manage. For example, Kwun Tong, a part of Hong Kong packs 57k people [www.gov.hk] per square km while hunter gather societies manage somewhere around 3 people [persquaremile.com] per square km.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday February 27 2019, @01:56PM (2 children)
It is still local environ adjusting.
Hang on.... You aren't actually saying that "humans manage to alter the environment at planetary scale", are you now, khallow?
Because if you do, you are in a very dangerous territory my friend - it's only one step away from admitting both AGW and reversing it are in fact possible. You know, like in "Anthropogenic GW". Just think the devastating impact this admission may have to your psyche, then slooowly, sloooowly back away, there be dragons here.
(large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday February 28 2019, @03:10AM (1 child)
The global trade and logistic chain that makes that possible is not, however.
Clearly I have never said anything remotely like that! For example
Or here [soylentnews.org] where I deny multiple times (five cited) that global climate change is a thing. Such as:
Or the numerous times I rank [soylentnews.org] global habitat destruction as a bigger problem than global climate change.
Clearly a denial that humans have any sort of global impact at all. Clearly.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 28 2019, @03:46AM
Updated. TA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @02:39PM
I don't see those birds making coffee-flavored milk beverages.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday March 06 2019, @04:32AM (3 children)
We have had this discussion a number of times. We have several solutions out there for Climate Change, all that matters now is which decision we choose and when. Takyon posted some links a while back from an early adopter of the Climate Change stuff where rather than just talk doom and gloom he bothered trying to find ways to fix it. His suggestion was 500 billion over the next 80 years to disburse something like a gram of Sulfur per ton of CO2 to break down the built up CO2. It would require something like eight jets running continuously for the next 80 years and revert the climate back to before we started our long track of emissions. This is currently the cheapest solution, although obviously not the best. Every year the costs to mitigate climate change will become less as tech growth seems to be growing faster than the problems being presented. The only solution leftists are willing to go along with is getting rid of all the cattle, getting rid of the personal vehicles, getting rid of luxury goods, living on reduced power, not having kids (but promoting others to have kids), and then committing suicide. BP in all of their greed probably already has a solution, and is just waiting for the right time to force us to buy it.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 06 2019, @05:09AM (2 children)
Exactly how creating acid rain and depleting the ozone layer in the process actually addresses the core problem: too much CO2?
Are we looking to "solutions" just to allow us burning dinojuice a little longer? What when these patches come to bite our head off?
You're disingenuous or delusional.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday March 06 2019, @03:12PM (1 child)
Then you should read your own party's talking points. I graduated high-school back in 07 and they pushed everything in the paragraph you think is fake hard. If you don't walk or take the bus you are evil. If you want kids you are evil because we should just take immigrants instead. If you are playing video games you are evil for wasting electricity.
>acid rain
That's why I said it's not a good idea right now and needs more work. The guy's research claims that because the process is over 80 years the effects of acid rain would be negligible but I didn't read through all of his research on that. But at least he is trying instead of trying to shove faaxism down my throat.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 06 2019, @11:03PM
As an immigrant from Europe in Australia as I am, kindly enlighten me what party would that be?
Yes and his efforts allow you to sleep well at night without doing anything.
And this is important because clearly you are the whole reason this world exists and you should live your life free of any responsibility.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:33PM (6 children)
CO2 is around 411 ppm [noaa.gov] now, up from 400 ppm in 2015.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:07PM (5 children)
And, thankfully, if you look at the record at your link thus far it's (basically) linear growth.
But what happens when permafrost starts melting....
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:14PM (1 child)
The beavers are already melting the permafrost. They have been melting it for awhile as they build their dams hoping for a better more comfortable life for themselves and their children.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:57PM
Damn beavers!
(I couldn't resist)
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Tuesday February 26 2019, @09:13PM (2 children)
Yeah, 10 ppm in four years, more or less.
So 100 in 40 years. Assuming the linear trend continues, as you say.
--
Math puns are the first sine of madness
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday February 27 2019, @07:09AM (1 child)
So we will reach TFA's 1200ppm in 300 years, assuming the linear trend continues, as you say.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @01:36PM
humanity still sat Earthside unable to control climate, then teh stoopid species deserve to die off.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:55PM (5 children)
It is a model of a flat earth without any day or night exposed to a sun that is suddenly ~ 100 W/m^2 brighter (decreased clouds is the exact same as a dimmer sun to this model):
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:00PM
*decreased clouds is the exact same as a brighter sun to this model
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 26 2019, @11:14PM (3 children)
I don't see anything in the quoted to support those assertions of yours. You care to elaborate?
Yes, the Earth will always define a flat cross-section in the solar radiation flux and, first approximation - ignoring the elliptical orbit around the Sun, that cross-section will always receive solar energy. That's as simple and true as saying 'There's always daytime for roughy half the Earth surface'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @11:57PM (2 children)
> "TOA insolation is specified as the diurnally averaged insolation in July"
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 27 2019, @12:11AM (1 child)
And you reckon averaging doesn't imply "with night and day"?
Yes, I'll admit, not necessary a good model (given the non-linearity of the system response), but not a totally bad either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @12:20AM
Yes. Instead of simulating a changing insolation they took the average of the earth's night and day and simulated a constant insolation of that amount. It is a standard simplification known to cause problems with these types of models (eg predict a body at the same distance as the earth from the sun without a greenhouse effect would have a temperature of 255K when the moon is at 150 K).
They also mention trying out a diurnal model but don't give many details:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=30305&page=1&cid=807232#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:08PM (2 children)
The predicted apocolypse occurs
The current level is ~ 400ppm, with an annual increase of ~3 ppm. The first derivative of the annual increase is, unfortunately, positive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:19PM (1 child)
The first derivative in these models was zero. They just set it to different values and ran the simulation until steady state.
Also, they say the results were different when they included day/night cycle:
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday February 27 2019, @04:29PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: -1, Troll) by eravnrekaree on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:38PM (13 children)
More alarmist nonsense created by computer generated fraud using rigged computer models. Anyway, if you wanted to scale back CO2 you would do it in China where CO2 use is growing more quickly. China gets to increase its CO2 use. Its not been growing much in the US. Climate change regulations mainly seem designed to be an excuse for giant wealth transfer from the US to China.
Also, rarely do you ever see the left proposing sane and reasonable things that could be done like high density yet affordable supertall buildings with housing, shopping and employment located within. In fact every Leftist company from Google and Amazon seems happy to invest in corporate headquarters located where people often have to drive 20 miles into work . Neither if Leftists actually believed in this stuff would they be investing big bucks in uber expensive real estate developments in New York or other coastal areas. Most leftists jet all over the place in carbon burning planes as if the internet and teleconferencing dont exist. How many computer, IT and open source conference do people continent hop to go to? Lots. They talk the talk but dont walk the walk in their own lives. The climate rules they want dont apply to them, only to other people beneath them. Thousands of people jump on a huge jet airliner and luxury sedans to go to some IPCC climate change conference.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Snow on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:52PM (8 children)
This argument sums up why I always piss in the pool.
That fat mother fucker over there is pissing in the pool, so why can't I? Plus, if they didn't want me to piss in the pool, why did they make the bathrooms so far away?
At least if I piss in the pool, I get to enjoy the moment of warmth.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday February 26 2019, @10:11PM (6 children)
Yes, but if everyone pisses in the pool, pretty soon you'll be swimming in piss.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 4, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday February 26 2019, @10:16PM
Exactly....
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @10:34PM (4 children)
So after every fish and other creature that has pissed in the sea for a billion years, swimming in the ocean is swimming in piss?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @11:17PM
Why do you think the seawater is salty? (grin)
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday February 27 2019, @03:31PM (2 children)
A swimming pool != the ocean. Plus, you are deliberately missing the point.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @08:48PM (1 child)
The point being that the problematic components of the "piss" gets processed by nature to other less offensive stuff?
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Thursday February 28 2019, @04:52PM
The point being that we would not need to clean the piss out of the pool if we didn't piss in it.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @12:11AM
And in other news... "don't eat yellow Snow".
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @12:14AM (3 children)
"leftist" always seems to be used by the conspiracy minded wackos
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @12:22AM (2 children)
Conspiracy-minded wackos usually don't distinguish between "left" and "right". The consipriacy is that these are both controlled opposition meant to distract people from being robbed by the federal reserve preferentially passing out fresh money and other scams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @05:18PM (1 child)
Ah so it's just a coincidence they're always right-wing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @07:47PM
No, not a coincidence. You just believe in those conspiracies (russia collusion, etc).