Climate Change Mega Thread

Computer questions/solutions, technology news, science topics.
User avatar
Jlabute
Guru
Posts: 6655
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Jlabute »

JLives wrote: Sep 13th, 2023, 3:35 pm
Well that's the quality you get if you are getting your climate science from blogs instead of actual scientists. These types of posters think they know it all but really are just playing a know it all on the internet. And continue to be very, incredibly wrong every time. Wat's up with that?
You must be referring to Dr. Roy Spencer who is an actual scientist and has received a NASA scientific achievement medal, among other scientific awards. He has a degree in atmospheric sciences and years of research experience. Tell me how he is not a scientist.

Maybe a little more prestigious than Mr Robert Rohde the microbe guy.

UAH V6 like other satellite measurements uses a microwave sounding unit to measure radiance of oxygen. An accurate means to infer global temperature. The great thing about science is that you don’t need direct contact to measure. Do you want to negate all satellite tech? There is nothing wrong posting measurements on a blog, it’s not as though you will access the database directly to make your own graphs.
Lord Kelvin - When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it.
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Guru
Posts: 6586
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Drip_Torch »

Since JLives was quoting me, yes Dr. Roy Spencer. His science is solid and his pseudo-science is equally refined.

Let me first point out something you might have missed about Dr. Roy Spencer.

In the words of Dr. Spencer...
So, to set the record straight, here’s what I believe… I’ll let you decide whether I’m a climate “denier”.

I believe the climate system has warmed (we produce one of the global datasets that shows just that, which is widely used in the climate community), and that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning contributes to that warming. I’ve said this for many years.
As you noted, he does have a bachelors degree in atmospheric sciences and a doctorate in Meteorology. He's a scientist - people that read his blog posts are most often not. They can't make the distinction between science and pseudo-science and are often just shopping around for a quick quote or chart to back up their own beliefs.

Science doesn't care about your beliefs. It creates hypothesis and moves forward in an attempt to prove or disprove it. The premise of your post was "There is no wide margin in actual temperature recording", despite the fact that you can now come back claiming to know the data set you quoted isn't actually a temperature recording.

Can you also agree with Dr. Spencer that his data shows the climate system has warmed and CO2 emissions are contributing to that warming?

Second, Dr. Roy Spencer has been censured by the Antidefamation League. A fact that reflects poorly on him and does take away from his "prestige".

Third, Dr. Roy Spencer isn't shy about his beliefs in a pseudo science known as intelligent design. This too does take away from his "prestige" as a scientist, because nothing in a pseudo science can be proved - it's simply an exercise in "raising questions". Most often this is ideologically based; as are most of his blog posts.

Sometimes, I get the impression he must laugh his guts out at the stupid people that read his blog posts. I love this one, it's in a blog post defending his position on intelligent design...
...CO2 is necessary for life to exist on Earth, and yet only 4 molecules out of every 10,000 in the atmosphere are CO2. Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are almost 100% CO2; life on Earth, in contrast, has sucked most of it out of the atmosphere.
[icon_lol2.gif] - Venus and Mars are places you want to be!

:130:

Oh, and it's PhD Robert Rhodes, Lead Scientist Berkeley Earth Team. Berkeley, rated number 2 in 2022 by Forbes. UAH, University of Alabama Huntsville, rated 475 in 2022 by Forbes. But, that's kind of irrelevant because Dr. Roy Spencer formerly worked with John Christy to publish the UAH V6 dataset. He doesn't anymore - he writes a blog.
Last edited by Drip_Torch on Sep 13th, 2023, 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
User avatar
Jlabute
Guru
Posts: 6655
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Jlabute »

Drip_Torch wrote: Sep 13th, 2023, 6:33 pm Since JLives was quoting me, yes Dr. Roy Spencer. His science is solid and his pseudo-science is equally refined.

Let me first point out something you might have missed about Dr. Roy Spencer.

In the words of Dr. Spencer...
So, to set the record straight, here’s what I believe… I’ll let you decide whether I’m a climate “denier”.

I believe the climate system has warmed (we produce one of the global datasets that shows just that, which is widely used in the climate community), and that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning contributes to that warming. I’ve said this for many years.
As you noted, he does have a bachelors degree in atmospheric sciences and a doctorate in Meteorology. He's a scientist - people that read his blog posts are most often not. They can't make the distinction between science and pseudo-science and are often just shopping around for a quick quote or chart to back up their own beliefs.

Science doesn't care about your beliefs. It creates hypothesis and moves forward in an attempt to prove or disprove it. The premise of your post was "There is no wide margin in actual temperature recording", despite the fact that you can now come back claiming to know the data set you quoted isn't actually a temperature recording.

Can you also agree with Dr. Spencer that his data shows the climate system has warmed and CO2 emissions are contributing to that warming?

Second, Dr. Roy Spencer has been censured by the Antidefamation League. A fact that reflects poorly on him and does take away from his "prestige".

Third, Dr. Roy Spencer isn't shy about his beliefs in a pseudo science known as intelligent design. This too does take away from his "prestige" as a scientist, because nothing in a pseudo science can be proved - it's simply an exercise in "raising questions". Most often this is ideologically based; as are most of his blog posts.

Sometimes, I get the impression he must laugh his guts out at the stupid people that read his blog posts. I love this one, it's in a blog post defending his position on intelligent design...
...CO2 is necessary for life to exist on Earth, and yet only 4 molecules out of every 10,000 in the atmosphere are CO2. Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are almost 100% CO2; life on Earth, in contrast, has sucked most of it out of the atmosphere.
[icon_lol2.gif] - Venus and Mars are places you want to be!

:130:

Oh, and it's PhD Robert Rhodes, Lead Scientist Berkeley Earth Team.
If anyone wants to go to mars, they should have signed up for Mars One [icon_lol2.gif] Dr Rohde, yet another Mann crony and fellow programmer and seller of warming art.

This probably better reflects what Dr. Spencer thinks. Despite what Dr Spencer & Dr Christy believe, satellite measurements are still a global effective means of ‘inferring’ temperature. As for CO2 contributing to warming, beliefs are all over the place since climate sensitivity is all over the place and impossible to know (yet). I would think what Dr. Spencer has on his blog represents what he believes as far as mans contribution to warming goes. I find the second link interesting as well as it reflects the state of climate science. Many studies have been done on climate sensitivity and as the years go by studies have been showing lower and lower values. The IPCC has historically used abnormally high climate sensitivity values and is why their position is contentious. Goes without saying that if man only affects climate by 1%, we are not in a rush to sell the farm and kitchen sink and start eating bugs. Those that cry climate emergency are more than likely nuts and don’t get my vote.

It is believed (based upon theoretical calculations) that our global emissions of carbon dioxide have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%, thus reducing the rate at which IR energy is lost to outer space.




https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-war ... r-manmade/
Lord Kelvin - When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it.
User avatar
JagXKR
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3478
Joined: Jun 19th, 2011, 6:25 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by JagXKR »

My favorite scientist is William Happer. His work in adaptive optics and the sodium level in the mesosphere was ground breaking. It forever changed how telescopes can view distant objects in the Universe from here on the surface of the Greening Earth.
His credentials and awards are numerous.
From wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer
Happer is a fellow of the American Physical Society. Happer was elected as a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1995 and a member of the National Academy of Sciences in 1996.[27][28] He received a Sloan Research Fellowship in 1967, the Herbert P. Broida Prize in 1997, the Davisson-Germer Prize and the Thomas Alva Edison Patent Award in 2000.[2] In 2003, he was named the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University.[29] Currently, he is a Professor Emeritus.
Why use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice.
User avatar
Jlabute
Guru
Posts: 6655
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Jlabute »

JagXKR wrote: Sep 13th, 2023, 9:31 pm
My favorite scientist is William Happer. His work in adaptive optics and the sodium level in the mesosphere was ground breaking. It forever changed how telescopes can view distant objects in the Universe from here on the surface of the Greening Earth.
His credentials and awards are numerous.
I like Dr. Happer as well. His outlook on climate is similar to Dr. Spencer in that 'climate sensitivity' (if climate assumptions can be boiled down to any sort of constant values) is low and CO2 absorption is near saturation. Once again, limiting the effects of any additional CO2 in the atmosphere. His papers look convincing.


https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s ... 302668.pdf
A. There is No Urgency to Act Now and Thus There is No Need for the Proposed Rule

Our informed scientific opinion is that doubling CO2 concentrations will cause about 1 C or less of warming. But assuming that doubling CO2 levels from today’s 415 ppm to 830 ppm will raise temperatures by a “dangerous” 2° C (about 4° F), which is unsupported by science, it would take a century or more for that to happen at the levels of CO2 emissions today.
Lord Kelvin - When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it.
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Guru
Posts: 6586
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Drip_Torch »

Jlabute wrote: Sep 14th, 2023, 10:12 am
JagXKR wrote: Sep 13th, 2023, 9:31 pm
My favorite scientist is William Happer. His work in adaptive optics and the sodium level in the mesosphere was ground breaking. It forever changed how telescopes can view distant objects in the Universe from here on the surface of the Greening Earth.
His credentials and awards are numerous.
I like Dr. Happer as well. His outlook on climate is similar to Dr. Spencer in that 'climate sensitivity' (if climate assumptions can be boiled down to any sort of constant values) is low and CO2 absorption is near saturation. Once again, limiting the effects of any additional CO2 in the atmosphere. His papers look convincing.


https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s ... 302668.pdf
A. There is No Urgency to Act Now and Thus There is No Need for the Proposed Rule

Our informed scientific opinion is that doubling CO2 concentrations will cause about 1 C or less of warming. But assuming that doubling CO2 levels from today’s 415 ppm to 830 ppm will raise temperatures by a “dangerous” 2° C (about 4° F), which is unsupported by science, it would take a century or more for that to happen at the levels of CO2 emissions today.
He sure had the opportunity to advance the science (his science) with his appointment to the Presidential Committee on Climate Security as the designated Federal Government official. It says under tab C in the Whitehouse document, the Deputy Assistant to the President for Emerging Technologies shall "advise the President on scientific understanding of today's climate and how it might change in the future under natural and human influences, including green house gas concentrations,..."

It goes on to say, "The heads of the executive departments and agencies shall provide...(him) with the scientific information related to climate when requested..."

He was the man at the top for a brief moment in time with a full access pass to look behind the curtain at all the available science and set the record straight - if in fact, that's what needs to happen.

Instead he resigned and went back to chair the CO2 Coalition - where he charges oil and gas companies $250 per hour to write CO2 friendly papers. Of course, he'd prefer they pay through a secretive funding channel called Donors Trust. For some reason or other.
In Happer’s case, the physicist declined any personal remuneration for his work but wanted his fee donated to the CO2 Coalition. Happer wrote in an email that his fee was $250 an hour and that it would require four days of work – a total of $8,000. “Depending on how extensive a document you have in mind, the time required or cost could be more or less, but I hope this gives you some idea of what I would expect if we were to proceed on some mutually agreeable course,” he wrote.
Wonder why he went back to being a shill, when he had such a perfect opportunity to advance the science?


.
a “dangerous” 2° C (about 4° F), which is unsupported by science, it would take a century or more for that to happen at the levels of CO2 emissions today.
So in other words, the 84 year old isn't all that concerned about 100 years from now.
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Guru
Posts: 6586
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Drip_Torch »

Prolly nuffin... at least the Turnips and Spuds are flourishing.
NASA Announces Summer 2023 Hottest on Record

Summer of 2023 was Earth’s hottest since global records began in 1880, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

The months of June, July, and August combined were 0.41 degrees Fahrenheit (0.23 degrees Celsius) warmer than any other summer in NASA’s record, and 2.1 degrees F (1.2 C) warmer than the average summer between 1951 and 1980. August alone was 2.2 F (1.2 C) warmer than the average. June through August is considered meteorological summer in the Northern Hemisphere.

This new record comes as exceptional heat swept across much of the world, exacerbating deadly wildfires in Canada and Hawaii, and searing heat waves in South America, Japan, Europe, and the U.S., while likely contributing to severe rainfall in Italy, Greece, and Central Europe.
.
Image
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
User avatar
JagXKR
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3478
Joined: Jun 19th, 2011, 6:25 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by JagXKR »

Drip_Torch wrote: Sep 14th, 2023, 11:22 am
Wonder why he went back to being a shill, when he had such a perfect opportunity to advance the science?
Did you watch the video? I think not, he answered it at 47:25.
GOP did not want the controversy and did not want the fight with the eco nut jobs. So he did what most people would do, go somewhere else, make some money and not fight with the stupid people that could not understand 1/100th of his knowledge in physics.
Tough to fight mass hysteria cloaked in the dogma of saving the world from something that gives life and is necessary for our future.
More CO2! I want the planet to thrive, so more more more. Keep those deserts shrinking. Keep the planet greening. Keep crop yields climbing.
Why use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice.
User avatar
JagXKR
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3478
Joined: Jun 19th, 2011, 6:25 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by JagXKR »

Drip_Torch wrote: Sep 14th, 2023, 1:21 pm
Image
I wish people would stop using the starting point of these graphs at an anomalous low. 1880 era was way way below normal. Saying it was only -0.5C is a lie. It was way colder than that. The graph is skewed and basically junk.
Also the urban heat island effect and the fact that the majority of temperature readings are now taken within those zones makes accurate temperature measurement purposeless and futile.
But let's slag a professor that is many times smarter than those who can't fathom the deep and complex atmosphere. Let's keep on digging out graphs and charts that are skewed and deceitful. Let's ignore the reality of the greening of the earth. All due to that life giving molecule, CO2. :up:
Why use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice.
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Guru
Posts: 6586
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Drip_Torch »

JagXKR wrote: Sep 14th, 2023, 6:41 pm
Drip_Torch wrote: Sep 14th, 2023, 1:21 pm
Image
I wish people would stop using the starting point of these graphs at an anomalous low. 1880 era was way way below normal. Saying it was only -0.5C is a lie. It was way colder than that. The graph is skewed and basically junk.
I suspect you might be mixing up your Irish famines, myself, but nevermind... I fixed it for you.

.
Untitled-1.jpg
.
In honor of your favourite scientist, I started it in the decade William Happer was born into.

Better? :138: If that doesn't work for you, I can always move it up to the year he defended his thesis on Frequency shifts in atomic beams resonances. (1964)
JagXKR wrote: Sep 14th, 2023, 6:30 pm
Did you watch the video? I think not, he answered it at 47:25.
GOP did not want the controversy and did not want the fight with the eco nut jobs. So he did what most people would do, go somewhere else, make some money and not fight with the stupid people that could not understand 1/100th of his knowledge in physics.
Tough to fight mass hysteria cloaked in the dogma of saving the world from something that gives life and is necessary for our future.
More CO2! I want the planet to thrive, so more more more. Keep those deserts shrinking. Keep the planet greening. Keep crop yields climbing.
Good gawd no! I didn't watch it to 47:25. There's a difference between science and rambling old man opinions. It's easy to spot. In simple terms, it starts with "In my opinion..." and then it offers nothing in the way of science to base that opinion on. Happer's scientific career was in the fields of Optical Pumping and Atomic Physics. He has an opinion on climate change, but he's never written a peer reviewed paper published in a science journal.

Why?
...in an email exchange with the fake business representative, Happer acknowledges that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal – the gold-standard process for quality scientific publication whereby work is assessed by anonymous expert reviewers. “I could submit the article to a peer-reviewed journal, but that might greatly delay publication and might require such major changes in response to referees and to the journal editor that the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly as your client would also like,” he wrote.

He suggested an alternative process whereby the article could be passed around handpicked reviewers. “Purists might object that the process did not qualify as a peer review,” he said. “I think it would be fine to call it a peer review.”


He's relevant when he publishes in his field, no doubt, you can see he's been cited over 2400 times on one of his articles from 1972, but it has nothing to do with climate science.

.
Untitled-2.jpg
And, he's not cited at all, at least in circles of people doing climate science, when he uses an "alternative process" to publish his opinions outside of his scientific field.

.
Untitled-3.jpg
You might think I'm cherry picking, but I'm not. "Climate 'emergency'? Not so fast" published in Capital Matters, has been cited twice - Just like "Climate science in the political arena" - twice. Many of his other "alternative process" published papers have never been cited by the scientific world at all. (Although I'm sure I've seen a few on Castanet forums, so I could be wrong there.)

CO2 makes plants grow faster is a bit of an oversimplification. There's certainly evidence to suggest that's true when the right balance of nutrients and moisture are maintained, but one doesn't have to look far to see what happens when that isn't the case.

Image

Happer is a smart man. Overlook the academic dishonesty of presenting other peoples work as his own, (not citing his sources) and the bald assertions and you can certainly see that he understands the science. Problem is he also presents some very easily dismissed statements as fact.

Don't know, is age playing a role, or is he simply letting ideology dictate his outlook on things? Don't care either... I'm interested in climate science, not conservative dogma and the whole "Donor Trust" connection tells me all I need to know about the man.

Hey, you're welcome to have your favorite scientist and express your opinion that NASA's earth observations are garbage... we're just not likely to share some common ground there.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa ... -on-record

Now a quick look at some other fun numbers.

Al-Bayda, Libya - (Sept 10, 8:00 am to Sept 11, 8:00 am) 414.1 mm of rain.
Zagora, Greece - (Sept 5, 8:00 am to Sept 6, 8:00 am) 750 mm of rain. Many other stations reported 400 to 600 mm range.

Both cases represent about 1 1/2 to 2 years worth of rain dropped in 24 hours. In Libya, last I heard, it's about 10,000 dead, or missing. In Greece it's over 700 sq km of the central farm belt (about 25% of farmable land) under up to 1.5 meters of water.

Warmer air holds more moisture - until it doesn't.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
User avatar
Jlabute
Guru
Posts: 6655
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Jlabute »

Drip_Torch wrote: Sep 14th, 2023, 8:03 pm
There's a difference between science and rambling old man opinions. It's easy to spot.

Warmer air holds more moisture - until it doesn't.
Well, at least you know how to spot an old man.
Merovingian wrote: And this is how you come to me, without why, without power.
Weather is not climate. Everything you are saying, to quote your favorite activist, "blah blah blah". All categories of random weather events are meaningless since they have always happened.

If warmer air holds more moisture, would that result in more rain? Well, global precipitation measured by satellite doesn't correlate to warmer temperatures or CO2. Sorry clouds don't form and rain doesn't pour in patterns you expect. This doesn't indicate catastrophic changings because of CO2.
global precip history.png

Scientists argue the effects of any green house effects.

https://edberry.com/greenhouse-gas-theo ... tmosphere/


New study indicates models do not conserve mass or energy. Yet more scientists contribute to a growing pile of dirt on modern models and how simplistic and wrong they are. Yet, only the left relies predominantly on them to prognosticate the future.


https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/si ... or-energy/

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journ ... 0281.1.xml
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Lord Kelvin - When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it.
User avatar
Jlabute
Guru
Posts: 6655
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Jlabute »

A point of interest. This github link is where modellers/scientists can collaborate.


https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming ... idmodel.md

This shows charts with a logarithmic CO2 response model, and a sunspot model. The sunspot model with no CO2 compensation actually aligns quite well with hadCRUT temperature set.

CO2 only
IMG_0069.png

Sunspots
IMG_0070.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Lord Kelvin - When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it.
User avatar
Drip_Torch
Guru
Posts: 6586
Joined: Aug 16th, 2012, 10:56 am

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Drip_Torch »

Jlabute wrote: Sep 15th, 2023, 6:33 pm
Drip_Torch wrote: Sep 14th, 2023, 8:03 pm
There's a difference between science and rambling old man opinions. It's easy to spot.

Warmer air holds more moisture - until it doesn't.
If warmer air holds more moisture, would that result in more rain? Well, global precipitation measured by satellite doesn't correlate to warmer temperatures or CO2. Sorry clouds don't form and rain doesn't pour in patterns you expect. This doesn't indicate catastrophic changings because of CO2.

global precip history.png
No, warmer air holds more moisture - that doesn't mean it would result in more rain events. I assume the blogs haven't covered the difference between absolute humidity, specific humidity and relative humidity?

Sorry, the strawman argument you created doesn't fly.

What does happen, however, is climate change and where we would expect X inches of rain in a year, it doesn't necessarily happen the way climate models would suggest it should. Greece, which broke high record temperatures for months, and suffered from catastrophic wildfires, got it's whole years worth of rain (+) in 24 hours.

Satellites don't measure precipitation, but you seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between measuring brightness temperature and calculating climate datasets, from actual measurements. Hint: "Derived", "deduced" means something entirely different than "observed", or "measured". Basically, the data deduced from TB is comparable with the data deduced from TB to show trends over time - and not a whole lot else.

Your github link is where climate change sceptics can spitball BS pseudo-science at folks that refuse to look at real science. If there was anything remotely believable in the chart you provided, the actual data shows we should be realizing cooling, if indeed sunspots and solar cycles were responsible for anything other than an insignificant amount of temperature fluctuation.

Image

The peaks and valleys in solar geomagnetic activity since 1900, based on the number of sunspots observed on the face of the Sun each day (orange dots). The Sun's activity increased in the early half of the twentieth century, but it can't be responsible for warming over the past 50 years. Graph by NOAA Climate.gov, based on data from the WDC-SILSO, Royal Observatory of Belgium.
A second reason that scientists have ruled out a significant role for the Sun in global warming is that if the Sun’s energy output had intensified, we would expect all layers of Earth’s atmosphere to have warmed. But we don’t see that. Rather, satellites and observations from weather balloons show warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and cooling in the upper stratosphere (stratosphere)—which is exactly what we would expect to see as a result of increasing greenhouse gases trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. Scientists regard this piece of evidence as one of several “smoking guns” linking today’s global warming to human-emitted, heat-trapping gases.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/c ... al-warming
Drip Torch - an upright and steadfast keeper of the flame, but when tilted sideways the contents spill and then our destiny is in the wind...
nepal
Übergod
Posts: 1380
Joined: Jul 19th, 2009, 7:04 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by nepal »

.
I don’t understand how EV’s will help save the plant, as they destroy the environment in other ways, such as mining for and disposal of batteries. All forms of vehicle locomotion have a negative environmental footprint.

Impact of metal mining:
https://news.lincoln.ac.uk/2023/09/22/g ... oodplains/

The planet simply has too many people, and an increasing proportion who want their own vehicles.
.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Spiff
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2768
Joined: Aug 23rd, 2022, 12:01 pm

Re: Climate Change Mega Thread

Post by Spiff »

Sorry, nepal, I just can't resist 'cause I love this quote.
Take most people, they’re crazy about cars. They worry if they get a little scratch on them, and they’re always talking about how many miles they get to a gallon, and if they get a brand-new car already they start thinking about trading it in for one that’s even newer. I don’t even like old cars. I mean they don’t even interest me. I’d rather have a g-dam horse. A horse is at least human, for God’s sake.

– J. D. Salinger

The Catcher in the Rye. Holden Caulfield in Chapter 17.

Return to “Computers, Science, Technology”