Politics Climate Change Paradox

Should we act now, or wait for a unified global approach


  • Total voters
    157

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Mningasimisonda

Premiership Player
Oct 4, 2005
3,183
2,813
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Tampa Bay Lightning
I thought this was a theory, i.e. the 'greenhouse theory'.

Are you claiming that it has been proven?
Like the theory of relativity or any other theory in science? I believe it's called the greenhouse effect, but I'll entertain the idea that your post was serious ;)

I'd expect this is one that takes very little to verify in the 21st century. We know gasses, we know waves and radiation. A change in heat in vs heat out shows increased heat trapped. A scientist could model or do a small sized experiment to show heat out was affected more and scale up with few unexpected differences. They have been studying climate science all over the world for decades now.

The hard parts to model are the chaotic changes in weather and ocean currents because small local shifts can cause large unexpected changes globally. The amount of information needed to accurately model it is massive.

As you'd know, it is hard to model the weather accurately for much more than a week, so they can only look at general predictions rather than pinpoint exact changes. This is something sceptics like to jump on in their ignorance, but no one is a god. They can just do their best with what is possible.
 
Last edited:

Craven Morehead

I really don't care what you think.
Jan 2, 2019
2,676
3,499
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Same here. Why would a military organisation have anything to do with 'military intent'?

Again I ask, if we cannot trust the United States military, who exactly can we trust?
Yeah, you're just attempting, badly, to be a smartarse..

How about you show exactly where the research has a military content/intent, instead of broad-brushing a huge organisation with your crap.
Piss or get off the pot time.
 

Mningasimisonda

Premiership Player
Oct 4, 2005
3,183
2,813
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Tampa Bay Lightning
I don't know why so many people dispute the claims of NASA.

Why would we not have faith in a multi-billion dollar military organisation of the United States?

If we can't trust the US military then who exactly can we trust?
I believe DARPA is the military research.

Obviously, everything in the cold war was a little military focussed, but NASA was created with the intention of being a civilian oriented agency aimed at peaceful applications of space science. Most NASA research is exploratory and scientific to better understand the planet and the universe.
 

Mningasimisonda

Premiership Player
Oct 4, 2005
3,183
2,813
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Tampa Bay Lightning
That is the interesting thing about climate science. Lots and lots of models.

Does anybody ever lose their job for getting a climate model wrong? Serious question.
I'm not sure what you expect scientists to do. It is a system the size of a planet. Do you want them to invent a shrink ray and put it in a lab? The sensible approach is measure and understand effects of things then show these things are happening in the system. There are measurements of increased carbon gasses in the atmosphere and of increased average global temperature, if that is what worries you.

I'd also ask why you try to contribute to debate in a field that you obviously know very little about.
 

mouncey2franklin

Club Legend
Jun 16, 2018
1,961
2,879
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I'm not sure what you expect scientists to do.
Some actual science would be a good start. You know, the scientific method.

When was the last time a climate 'scientist' got the sack for an incorrect model?

Did any of the IPCC get the sack for their since-disproven by reality models in their earlier reports?

I'd also ask why you try to contribute to debate in a field that you obviously know very little about.
'Have faith in the clergy, speak not against them or you will be labeled a blasphemer'.
 

Mningasimisonda

Premiership Player
Oct 4, 2005
3,183
2,813
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Tampa Bay Lightning
Some actual science would be a good start. You know, the scientific method.

When was the last time a climate 'scientist' got the sack for an incorrect model?

Did any of the IPCC get the sack for their since-disproven by reality models in their earlier reports?


'Have faith in the clergy, speak not against them or you will be labeled a blasphemer'.
If you want it not to be a matter of faith in the word of others then educate yourself. Use the time that you use for arguing garbage in here to instead learn science and understand it better.

I already mentioned that they are modeling chaotic systems so the exact changes in climate are hard to pinpoint. However, the main reason these predictions are necessary are because governments are dragging their heels and not addressing the issues that are causing the climate change. What exactly happens in extreme climate change is probably the least important question to ask, because we should be smart enough as a species to adjust before it comes to that.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

its free real estate

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Jul 30, 2018
7,233
9,116
AFL Club
Fremantle
Lots of words, zero actual science.
What is actual science?
Hypothesis
Method
Procedure
Results
Conclusion.

I may have missed one out. From the conclusion a new hypothesis is created and a test/study is then set up to test the new hypothesis. It is (I think) a continual cycle of testing and analysis to better understand a phenomena.
what makes a hypothesis?
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
18,130
18,993
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I thought this was a theory, i.e. the 'greenhouse theory'.

Are you claiming that it has been proven?
Pretty sure the concept is proven. What is unknown is the actual level of influence.

To date the models of the last 30, 20 and 10 years have been completely wrong.

One day they may get it right.
 

Bollox

Show Pony
Jun 29, 2006
15,203
8,370
Nthn Beaches
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
BBGFC and LRGC
Venus is hotter than Mercury despite being further from the Sun. Why?
Extreme density of atmosphere.
Venus and Mars have a CO2 atmosphere approx 95+%
We have a 0.04% CO2 atmosphere mainly comprised of Nitrogen Oxygen.
Your high school chemistry text is a good start, or look thru the instruction manual of a KMart pressure cooker.
 

its free real estate

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Jul 30, 2018
7,233
9,116
AFL Club
Fremantle
Extreme density of atmosphere.
Venus and Mars have a CO2 atmosphere approx 95+%
We have a 0.04% CO2 atmosphere mainly comprised of Nitrogen Oxygen.
Your high school chemistry text is a good start, or look thru the instruction manual of a KMart pressure cooker.
So the “greenhouse” effect is real?
 

Bollox

Show Pony
Jun 29, 2006
15,203
8,370
Nthn Beaches
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
BBGFC and LRGC
So the “greenhouse” effect is real?
We don't know. Its a theory like so many others.
If I had to guess I'd be looking more at the geology and thermodynamics for answers. Many planets have CO2 atmospeheres and show no signs of those temperatures so i'd guess it is likely something else causing the temps. From memory its a similar temp to Mercury and could be explained by gravitational mass, internal geology, surface morphology etc. For instance does it have graphite volcanoes belching carbon ? Carbonate rich ? Could be 1000 reasons. Being much closer to the gravitational effect and strain caused by the mass of the sun makes another 1000 theories possible. I don't think the probes we've sent provide that many answers yet. We have a theory HERE that increased CO2 leads to increased temps but it may be the complete opposite. Chicken or the egg stuff we cannot prove either way yet. Did proximity heat lead to a CO2 atmosphere ? which led to the high density ? which then leads back to increased heat ? or some sort of runaway greenhouse effect ? Any number of possibilities. Nobody can answer it with conclusive evidence.

Regardless, it isn't easy therefore to explain how cold Mars is with a similar CO2 rich atmosphere, even when taking distance into account. There are some seriously bizarre places in our solar system, with processes we would have never guessed and our theories often fail miserably to explain. What we have learnt though is that most theories based upon our planet cannot be applied elsewhere with much confidence.

I imagine anyone claiming the temps on Venus are some sort of "proof" of anything are just kidding themselves (and others).
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom