Do you believe in global warming?

[isingmodel]

You've heard the bell ring but don't know where the clapper is.

You can't observe something that hasn't happened yet. Sea levels, agriculture, extreme weather, natural ecosystems are all still within known levels of the past 5000 years and nothing unique.

As for the future, climate change if following predicted trends will have a booming effect on agriculture in most of the Northern hemisphere. Ecosystems won't collapse due to climate change on any short-term. For now, any climatological changes are still within Holocene values and as such should not by itself threaten ecosystems. And even if that weren't true, I have written this post before on that topic:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showt...post1588668341
The real danger to ecosystems and the natural world as a whole is destruction of natural habitat by human activity. Something we should absolutely do something about.

Your comparison to lung cancer however, falls completely flat. A "World salad" as you call it.

I've addressed all of your claims about natural processes being the cause of current rate of temperature increase and its consequences and you're wrong on every front, and clearly have never looked at any of the research full stop. Human activity has pushed changes in climate outside of any self-regulating balance that it naturally resides in which means that looking to the future, unless something is done to curb human activity the planet isn't going to cope with the effect we are having on it. All of your claims state "for now", and "in the short term", which basically makes my point for me. Smoking also won't kill you "in the short term".

Now you're moving to silly musings about how extinction is totally normal and cool and therefore we shouldn't do much about it. Yes species go extinct all the time, but we are predominantly concerned with the effect on our own species which needs land that isn't underwater, reasonably moderate climates and crops to live. Agriculture will in the short term see a boost in temperate climates, but many of the food insecure parts of the world are already seeing decreases in crop yields, and increased CO2 also has a negative impact on the nutritional quality/vitamin content of major crops.

Both your total misunderstanding of climate science and your bizarre conclusions about why we should do nothing to try and reduce our impact in destroying the planet are so all over the place that it's honestly anyone's guess what your agenda even is.

[NYPat]

[Sakeoe]

Doesn't look very significant to me

I've addressed all of your claims about natural processes being the cause of current rate of temperature increase and its consequences and you're wrong on every front, and clearly have never looked at any of the research full stop. Human activity has pushed changes in climate outside of any self-regulating balance that it naturally resides in which means that looking to the future, unless something is done to curb human activity the planet isn't going to cope with the effect we are having on it. All of your claims state "for now", and "in the short term", which basically makes my point for me. Smoking also won't kill you "in the short term".

Now you're moving to silly musings about how extinction is totally normal and cool and therefore we shouldn't do much about it. Yes species go extinct all the time, but we are predominantly concerned with the effect on our own species which needs land that isn't underwater, reasonably moderate climates and crops to live. Agriculture will in the short term see a boost in temperate climates, but many of the food insecure parts of the world are already seeing decreases in crop yields, and increased CO2 also has a negative impact on the nutritional quality/vitamin content of major crops.

Both your total misunderstanding of climate science and your bizarre conclusions about why we should do nothing to try and reduce our impact in destroying the planet are so all over the place that it's honestly anyone's guess what your agenda even is.

Its unfortunate you weren't able to understand what I wrote. I can understand it might all be a bit too complex and overwhelming for someone without any scientific background like yourself. Sorry for that.

[isingmodel]

Damn bro, you'll believe any propaganda the media throws at you.

People want AFFORDABLE green alternatives, meaning there will be money to be made, which means private industry will develop them.


I mean, just look at Elon Musk...

All of Elon's companies exist because of government subsidies or government contracts and haven't been profitable for the majority of their existence, so thanks for proving his point.

Developing things like thorium or fusion reactors will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and many decades and no private VCs are going to make an investment in something like that, which is why it will need to be done in the public sector.

You are not smart.

[NYPat]

Doesn't look very significant to me

[img]https://slideplayer.com/slide/16944515/97/images/4/Our+current+geologic+period+has+the+lowest+average +CO2+levels+in+all+of+Earth%E2%80%99s+long+history ..jpg[img]

Lmao hundreds of millions of years ago..

better get on the phone with NASA and point this out.

[isingmodel]

Its unfortunate you weren't able to understand what I wrote. I can understand it might all be a bit too complex and overwhelming for someone without any scientific background like yourself. Sorry for that.

Posted by someone whose scientific evidence presented to date stands at 0. Let's not forget the last thread where you misquoted two separate scientific papers then quickly ducked out of the thread never to be seen again when you got called out on it by more than one poster.

[Sakeoe]

Posted by someone whose scientific evidence presented to date stands at 0. Let's not forget the last thread where you misquoted two separate scientific papers then quickly ducked out of the thread never to be seen again when you got called out on it by more than one person.

Oh you mean the thread were you and numberguy12 got ethered and then never posted again? Yeah, that was a great thread.

Lmao hundreds of millions of years ago..

better get on the phone with NASA and point this out.

Point is you can make any peak look significant with a small enough y-axis. Also 800.000 years is a less relevant time scale than 100s of millions on the topic we're discussing lol. Your graph is looking at a small part of the Pleistocene (and Holocene). A completely insignificant timescale. Not to mention that period is known as a co2 poor environment due to glaciation.

[isingmodel]

Oh you mean the thread were you and numberguy12 got ethered and then never posted again? Yeah, that was a great thread.

I remember it quite well, you made the usual downie denier talking point that only 0.3% of climate scientists believe in climate change, posted a study you thought proved your point, I showed why you hadn't read the study and that it didn't make any such claim at all, then you went totally radio silent. Fairly typical for the illiterate.

[numberguy12]

Oh you mean the thread were you and numberguy12 got ethered and then never posted again? Yeah, that was a great thread.

Sorry, merely stating things does not make it true.

A reminder of this fact: 3 is an even integer.

Which thread exactly did I "get ethered and then never posted again"? Care to link it? I do remember this one where you did exactly this though, ironically:

https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showt...7690341&page=3

Literally Sakeoe's own words:

Dunno what kind of skin in the game you have here or if you're just hardcore trolling but I'm going to stop responding to your posts.

Backs out because the dumpster-level of a thread he created backfired.


Your posting on the subject of climate change has revealed almost a complete misunderstanding of basic science, and it's not worth people's time bothering to address it anymore. I credit isingmodel for his patience.

I will repeat: people in here love to offer all kinds of declarative "special takes" about climate change, but the truth is, they just arent scientists in the field, nor have adequate training. Best to consult the actual science, not babble on the misc. To repeat: scientific matters arent "solved" by mere debates in online forums.

[Sakeoe]

Sorry, merely stating things does not make it true.

A reminder of this fact: 3 is an even integer.

Which thread exactly did I "get ethered and then never posted again"? Care to link it? I do remember this one where you did exactly this though, ironically:

https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showt...7690341&page=3

Literally Sakeoe's own words:



Backs out because the dumpster-level of a thread he created backfired.


Your posting on the subject of climate change has revealed almost a complete misunderstanding of basic science, and it's not worth people's time bothering to address it anymore. I credit isingmodel for his patience.

I will repeat: people in here love to offer all kinds of declarative "special takes" about climate change, but the the truth is, they just arent scientists in the field, nor have adequate training. Best to consult the actual science, not babble on the misc. To repeat: scientific matters arent "solved" by mere debates in online forums.

Actually that is exactly how poincaré conjecture got solved, something that should interest you as "math crew". The dude posted it on a forum.

[wincel]

Damn bro, you'll believe any propaganda the media throws at you.

People want AFFORDABLE green alternatives, meaning there will be money to be made, which means private industry will develop them.


I mean, just look at Elon Musk...

There is no affordable alternative. It is going to cost some serious cash to break into new tech. And btw, economy will be hurt by this, and should be. We need production to decline to reduce emissions, ultimately. There will be no efficient, private funding for these projects. It will take serious cash directed at R&D at the expense of other things. And if we don't do it, nothing will be done to fix the issue. Sorry. Market will have to take a hit for it. If you don't want that, then enjoy the worse hit later. Good luck.

[wincel]

Actually that is exactly how poincaré conjecture got solved, something that should interest you as "math crew". The dude posted it on a forum.

He posted it to arxiv u muppet.

[Sakeoe]

There is no affordable alternative. It is going to cost some serious cash to break into new tech. And btw, economy will be hurt by this, and should be. We need production to decline to reduce emissions, ultimately. There will be no efficient, private funding for these projects. It will take serious cash directed at R&D at the expense of other things. And if we don't do it, nothing will be done to fix the issue. Sorry. Market will have to take a hit for it. If you don't want that, then enjoy the worse hit later. Good luck.

Actually it requires very little investment and research to convert the current gas grids and CV-boilers to be hydrogen compatible.

Wonder why the green church doesn't see that as a viable solution. Instead opting to now build houses without any gas infrastructure rendering later converting to hydrogen very costly.

[wincel]

Actually it requires very little investment and research to convert the current gas grids and CV-boilers to be hydrogen compatible.

Wonder why the green church doesn't see that as a viable solution. Instead opting to now build houses without any gas infrastructure rendering later converting to hydrogen very costly.

Hydrogen doesn't have the energy density necessary to act as a true replacement. You also have to get the hydrogen, and the best source is fossil fuels. Derp.

[numberguy12]

Actually that is exactly how poincaré conjecture got solved, something that should interest you as "math crew". The dude posted it on a forum.

What are you even saying.....like you are spewing things you have no understanding of.

First, to clear things up: Mathematics and science are rather different disciplines.....differing in you know, basic things like how one acquires knowledge. Science is primarily done in the field and in the lab, requires empirical testing of hypotheses, and results are published in studies. Its truths are based on evidence. Mathematics is primarily done with a pencil and paper, and its truths follow deductively from axioms. Glad that's cleared up now.

Second, even acknowledging the above, Perelman's proof of the Poincare conjecture was posted to arXiv...this is not an internet forum for debating lol. Honestly, what are you even trying to say? Also, where's the link to the thread you are referencing above, making certain claims about?

[numberguy12]

He posted it to arxiv u muppet.

This. Lol wtf.

[gachase21]

Just lol at the resident r/p glaciation advocates and their laughable argument that would doom humanity.

[Sakeoe]

Hydrogen doesn't have the energy density necessary to act as a true replacement. You also have to get the hydrogen, and the best source is fossil fuels. Derp.

What are you talking about? Hydrogen has a energy density 3 times higher than gas. It has plenty of energy to act as a replacement for natural gas. In fact, there are pilots doing exactly just that.

Best source isn't true, most used yes. Currently fossil fuels are used to produce syngas but you can also produce it efficiently by making use of algae farming or HTE, both likely commercially viable with just a bit more research.

He posted it to arxiv u muppet.

This. Lol wtf.

In my memory he originally posted it on a Russian math forum first. But I can't find any sources of it so maybe I'm remembering it wrong.

[wincel]

What are you talking about? Hydrogen has a energy density 3 times higher than gas. It has plenty of energy to act as a replacement for natural gas. In fact, there are pilots doing exactly just that.

Best source isn't true, most used yes. Currently fossil fuels are used to produce syngas but you can also produce it efficiently by making use of algae farming or HTE, both likely commercially viable with just a bit more research.





In my memory he originally posted it on a Russian math forum first. But I can't find any sources of it so maybe I'm remembering it wrong.

That is incorrect sir. Stuff like butane, propane, gasoline, etc is way higher energy density. Not sheriff srs. U must be thinking of specific energy...lol. That doesn't matter. Volumetric energy density is what matters. J/cubic meter...

u gotta put hydrogen under extreme pressure in tanks to have a good energy density. Most hydrogen comes from fossil fuels, and this isn't easily replaced.

[SwayWay]

YES! Go into your garage close the doors and turn on the engine for an entire day without having any ventilation. Would you be okay living inside your closed garage like that? Cars/factories/human consumption create pollution into the environment. At some point it WILL have an effect on climate in a negative way. Why is this soooo hard to comprehend? Go to Beijing where they have ZERO environmental laws or greenhouse gas emission policy and you see what it's like to live in a place with filthy air pollution everyday. I don't want to live on a planet like that.

[Sakeoe]

That is incorrect sir. Stuff like butane, propane, gasoline, etc is way higher energy density. Not sheriff srs. U must be thinking of specific energy...lol. That doesn't matter. Volumetric energy density is what matters. J/cubic meter...

u gotta put hydrogen under extreme pressure in tanks to have a good energy density. Most hydrogen comes from fossil fuels, and this isn't easily replaced.

I looked into it and apparently you are right, MJ/L is lower than for natural gas. I however couldn't find any sources saying that the energy density is so low you cannot use it any more to cook or heat your home/water. Sources?

YES! Go into your garage close the doors and turn on the engine for an entire day without having any ventilation. Would you be okay living inside your closed garage like that? Cars/factories/human consumption create pollution into the environment. At some point it WILL have an effect on climate in a negative way. Why is this soooo hard to comprehend? Go to Beijing where they have ZERO environmental laws or greenhouse gas emission policy and you see what it's like to live in a place with filthy air pollution everyday. I don't want to live on a planet like that.

U know, Co2 isnt CO and pollution and climate change are two completely different unrelated topics.

[NYPat]

Point is you can make any peak look significant with a small enough y-axis. Also 800.000 years is a less relevant time scale than 100s of millions on the topic we're discussing lol. Your graph is looking at a small part of the Pleistocene (and Holocene). A completely insignificant timescale. Not to mention that period is known as a co2 poor environment due to glaciation.

Yeah you're right, better to ignore the most recent 800,00 years and focus on the hundreds of millions of years prior to that when it comes to an actual discussion of CO2 in the air TODAY.

Fuking LOL

[Sakeoe]

Yeah you're right, better to ignore the most recent 800,00 years and focus on the hundreds of millions of years prior to that when it comes to an actual discussion of CO2 in the air TODAY.

Fuking LOL

You see many glaciers on your way to work?

Oh wait, I mean to the benefits office?

[wincel]

I looked into it and apparently you are right, MJ/L is lower than for natural gas. I however couldn't find any sources saying that the energy density is so low you cannot use it any more to cook or heat your home/water. Sources?


U know, Co2 isnt CO and pollution and climate change are two completely different unrelated topics.

If u look at how low it is, and how impractical and dangerous it is to have high pressure hydrogen tanks everywhere, u can see the issue...

[Sakeoe]

If u look at how low it is, and how impractical and dangerous it is to have high pressure hydrogen tanks everywhere, u can see the issue...

No I do not see the issue. You're making it out as if it has an extremely low energy density. It's still 1/3rd the energy density of natural gas according to wiki. You don't need high pressure hydrogen tanks everywhere. What made you think that? We don't have high pressure LNG tanks everywhere right now do we?

[wincel]

No I do not see the issue. You're making it out as if it has an extremely low energy density. It's still 1/3rd the energy density of natural gas according to wiki. You don't need high pressure hydrogen tanks everywhere. What made you think that? We don't have high pressure LNG tanks everywhere right now do we?

What I am saying is it isn't practical to replace all needs. Sure, maybe u can have a hydrogen stove or something. My point is that it only serves as a minor replacement to natural gas, and even then, since most of the hydrogen is coming from natural gas anyway it is easier to just use the fuel directly.

[Sakeoe]

What I am saying is it isn't practical to replace all needs. Sure, maybe u can have a hydrogen stove or something. My point is that it only serves as a minor replacement to natural gas, and even then, since most of the hydrogen is coming from natural gas anyway it is easier to just use the fuel directly.

Except it is practical since the infrastructure is already there.

Point is, I'm fine with continued use of natural gas. You and your climate-friends are not and want to abolish it. If so, hydrogen is a perfect replacement. I already mentioned you don't need fossil fuels to create hydrogen in my previous post.

[engj]

Yeah you're right, better to ignore the most recent 800,00 years and focus on the hundreds of millions of years prior to that when it comes to an actual discussion of CO2 in the air TODAY.

Fuking LOL

There is some importance in the timeline, pretending there isn't weakens your argument. 800k years is a geological blink.

The basis for much of the argument for minimizing anthropocentric carbon dioxide is hypothesizing that we will reach some 'tipping point', where we will see rapid increases in temperature spurring large scale carbon release from the biosphere causing a runaway greenhouse reaction.

People discussing this point to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum extinction event as earths most recent example, which was that little up-tick you see on that graph 55M years ago. Its also the hypothesis of what happened to Venus, where it heated to the degree it evaporated all water and further devloatized C02 from sedimentary rock.

The people find it convenient to ignore these potential models, because they don't want to acknowledge a cause that can't be anthropocentric. They also don't like to acknowledge periods of time where the earths atmosphere was 3-10x today's CO2 without a runaway greenhouse event.