SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   American Cities and Climate Change: When is Enough, Enough? (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=240370)

SIGSEGV Sep 23, 2019 1:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8695194)
Its literally completely acceptable to question scientists, in fact it is the duty of the scientific duty to do so.

The notion that there is a "consensus" on any scientific theory is wrong.

Would you say there's no consensus on the earth being approximately an oblate spheroid because of flat-earthers? No consensus on evolution because of young-earth creationists?

Perhaps you are using the word "consensus" differently than most people understand it.

SIGSEGV Sep 23, 2019 1:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8695212)
Humans are not causing climate change, lol.

What is your opinion on the source of the excess CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

Sun Belt Sep 23, 2019 1:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV (Post 8695234)
What is your opinion on the source of the excess CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

This question you pose in response to my statement have nothing to do with each other.

Try again.

E] To be fair, I'll help you out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8695187)
Absolutely. The scientists who have made their career out of studying the climate are in nearly 100% agreement that the climate is changing rapidly, and humans are causing it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8695212)
Humans are not causing climate change, lol.


lio45 Sep 23, 2019 1:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV (Post 8695233)
Perhaps you are using the word "consensus" differently than most people understand it.

I was going to say the same thing then I realized if you consider "theory" to be the key word there, he's not that incorrect, assuming he's using a definition of "a theory" that's closer to what you and I would call "a hypothesis".

If we rephrase his statement - hopefully we can all agree that there is extremely often consensus on many things in science (i.e. all the established, proven science), while pretty much by definition, there's not going to be consensus yet on a mere hypothesis.

lio45 Sep 23, 2019 1:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8695241)
E] To be fair, I'll help you out.

"Human activity is what caused the meteoric rise in CO2 levels over the past few decades", you agree or disagree with this one as written?

iheartthed Sep 23, 2019 2:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8695241)
This question you pose in response to my statement have nothing to do with each other.

Try again.

E] To be fair, I'll help you out.


Humans are not causing climate change, lol.

The scientists who study the climate are in almost total agreement that humans ARE the cause of it. You may not think humans are the cause of it, but climate scientists DO agree that we are the cause of it.

jtown,man Sep 23, 2019 2:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV (Post 8695229)
There is only so much brain bandwidth available. You may have asked your question in good faith (I have no reason to doubt you), but from the perspective of the professor, your question, which was was essentially "what are the advantages of climate change?" may have set of his/her bad faith argument alarm (i.e. it may have sounded like a young-earth creationist asking a question about the eyes of the coelacanth in a lecture on evolution). If you meant to ask "what groups stand to benefit from climate change" that would be a less loaded way to ask the question since it doesn't have the implied value judgement :).

I get that. We had a good rapport though like I said(before the class). That's actually why after only about 10 minutes of questions(the class is 1.5 hours long) in a class that was dedicated 100% to us asking questions I felt bad for him and wanted to get the conversation going.

mhays Sep 23, 2019 3:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by accord1999 (Post 8695185)
Because climate didn't kill people in the past?

https://i.imgur.com/YZOXtoZ.png

Cigarettes are a simple recreational drug, but energy forms the foundation of modern civilization, and is overwhelmingly provided by carbon fuels. Cut off all oil, coal and natural gas and after the first local winter most of the world's population would be dead.

Climate change is starting to...change climates. Today it's big effects in the arctic for example, and smaller effects in most of the world. As the effects grow, entire cultures will find themselves moving...the Floridas of the second and third worlds in particular.

Sun Belt Sep 23, 2019 3:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8695517)
Climate change is starting to...change climates. Today it's big effects in the arctic for example, and smaller effects in most of the world. As the effects grow, entire cultures will find themselves moving...the Floridas of the second and third worlds in particular.

This is not new.

This is how people got to Australia and Indonesian islands and the entire Western Hemisphere.

E] Sundaland:
Quote:

Greater portions of Sundaland were most recently exposed during the last glacial period from approximately 110,000 to 12,000 years ago. When sea level was decreased by 30–40 meters or more, land bridges connected the islands of Borneo, Java, and Sumatra to the Malay Peninsula and mainland Asia. Because sea level has been 30 meters or more lower throughout much of the last 800,000 years, the current state of Borneo, Java, and Sumatra as islands has been a relatively rare occurrence throughout the Pleistocene.[8] In contrast, sea level was higher during the late Pliocene, and the exposed area of Sundaland was smaller than what is observed at present. During the Last Glacial Maximum sea level fell by approximately 120 meters, and the entire Sunda Shelf was exposed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundaland

Sun Belt Sep 23, 2019 3:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45 (Post 8695246)
"Human activity is what caused the meteoric rise in CO2 levels over the past few decades", you agree or disagree with this one as written?

That I can agree with. ;)

Obadno Sep 23, 2019 3:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV (Post 8695233)
Would you say there's no consensus on the earth being approximately an oblate spheroid because of flat-earthers? No consensus on evolution because of young-earth creationists?

Perhaps you are using the word "consensus" differently than most people understand it.

There is very little reason to doubt that the earth is spherical base don evidence provided. (although people do)

Statements that human caused climate change are "consensus" are not accurate. Many scientists think that humans are the cause of increased carbon dioxide. But some think that humans are not the primary cause only a contributory cause, some dont think humans have an impact at all.

And that's just what is causing increased greenhouse gas emissions, the easiest of the questions. The far more complicated and important stuff comes with what that actually will do do the climate, if anything at all, if we can or even should do something to stop it. If greenhouse gasses will ultimately lead to our worst case extrapolations and inferences or not.

People throw out the consensus on humans creating more CO2 (and other gasses) and use that shut down any debate on what can or should be done.

For example, Sun Belt can come in here throwing out his claims about climate change and what its effects will be, and it has been quickly countered with "Scientists all agree its happening" That isn't a point nor an argument its an appeal to authority, an inaccurate statement and an attempt to shut down debate without addressing what he is arguing.

Sun Belt Sep 23, 2019 4:18 PM

Quote:

During the American megafaunal extinction event around 12,700 years ago, 90 genera of mammals weighing over 44 kilograms became extinct. The Late Pleistocene fauna in North America included giant sloths, short-faced bears, several species of tapirs, peccaries (including the long nosed and flat-headed peccaries), the American lion, giant tortoises, Miracinonyx ("American cheetahs", not true cheetahs), saber-toothed cats like Smilodon and the scimitar cat, Homotherium, dire wolves, saiga, camelids such as two species of now extinct llamas and Camelops, at least two species of bison, the stag-moose, the shrub-ox and Harlan's muskox, 14 species of pronghorn (of which 13 are now extinct), horses, mammoths and mastodons, the beautiful armadillo and the giant armadillo-like Glyptotherium, and giant beavers, as well as birds like giant condors, other teratorns and terror birds. In contrast, today the largest North American land animal is the American bison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...n_the_Holocene

If only we had carbon taxes on the continent, 13,000 years ago, we would still have all these wonderful animals --maybe with Quantitative Easing and negative interest rates too, because that's going to literally stop today's Climate Change cold in it's tracks from here on out.

JManc Sep 23, 2019 4:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8695536)
This is not new.

This is how people got to Australia and Indonesian islands and the entire Western Hemisphere.

E] Sundaland:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundaland

Were early humans migrating to Oceania and the Americas because of the climate change or were they simply migrating to explore/ establish new territory?

Sun Belt Sep 23, 2019 4:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 8695594)
Were early humans migrating to Oceania and the Americas because of the climate change or were they simply migrating to explore/ establish new territory?

Probably both. Perhaps they left a drought stricken area that existed back then because of the glaciation of the northern hemisphere -- perhaps Green Sahara was beginning to dry out.

The fact remains that the Earth has gone through massive changes to the climate in a relatively short period of geological time. The Earth will continue to experience changes in the climate. This is not new.

And taxes aren't going to stop Climate Change, why? Because of the wild swings in climate [a few thousand years ago] before we had nonphysical stuff like digits in bank accounts to move around.

Obadno Sep 23, 2019 4:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 8695594)
Were early humans migrating to Oceania and the Americas because of the climate change or were they simply migrating to explore/ establish new territory?

I would suspect most people in pre history migrated to follow animals, or in search of better places to live.

So, im sure changing climates over thousands of years did make people move, but you are talking about migration patterns that took thousands of years. If an unsettled tribe of people even spent several centuries (blink of an eye) in a valley, island, or coastal area before changes to rain patterns or animal migrations spurned them to move, it wouldn't feel like they were "fleeing" or what have you, it would have been a generations long continuum with things like war, illness and natural disasters causing populations to up and move rapidly.

pj3000 Sep 23, 2019 5:14 PM

8th grade Earth science:

We know that Earth's atmosphere regulates energy flows to create a delicate energy balance which maintains Earth surface temperatures and allows current planetary life to exist.

We know that within this energy regulation process the "greenhouse effect" is characterized by naturally-occurring atmospheric gases (like CO2, CH4, NO2, H2O vapor) which absorb longwave energy (i.e., infrared/heat) that is re-radiated from the Earth's surface and trap it in the lower atmosphere, thereby allowing less energy (heat) to escape back to space.

This energy equation warms our planet and allows us to live, much in the same way glass traps re-radiated infrared radiation (heat) inside a greenhouse and allows plants to live inside of it in the winter; or why your car gets so damn hot when it's sitting in the sun with the windows closed. Shorter wave radiation (visible, UV) can pass thru the glass and warm interior surfaces... longer wave radiation (infrared, aka heat) radiates off the warmed surfaces and cannot pass back through the glass... thus warming the interior of the greenhouse or car two-fold, to the point where it is much warmer than the exterior. Think of the greenhouse or car interior as the Earth's surface and the glass as the Earth's atmosphere.

We know that the left side of an equation must equal the right side of the equation.
Increasing a value on the left results in a corresponding increase on the right. An input into a system results in an increase in output.

Highly simplified for purpose of demonstration... there are definitely other factors at play which also influence atmosphere temp. Let's just use CO2 and H2O vapor for example as two contributing GHGs (you could put any of them for x and y and add many many more variable, the output z would still have to reflect the inputs):

x+y = z

x = tons of atmospheric CO2
y = tons of atmospheric H2O vapor
z = atmospheric temperature

Increase x and/or y... you increase z.


We know that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have been rising as global population has rapidly increased and resulting human emissions of greenhouse gases have rapidly increased.

We have increased x, we have increased y... therefore we have increased z.

We have added CO2, H20 vapor, CH4, NO2, etc. to the atmospheric system therefore we have increased the atmospheric temperature.

Obadno Sep 23, 2019 5:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8695663)
8th grade Earth science:

We know that Earth's atmosphere regulates energy flows to create a delicate energy balance which maintains Earth surface temperatures and allows current planetary life to exist.

We know that within this energy regulation process the "greenhouse effect" is characterized by naturally-occurring atmospheric gases (like CO2, CH4, NO2, H2O vapor) which absorb longwave energy (i.e., infrared/heat) that is re-radiated from the Earth's surface and trap it in the lower atmosphere, thereby allowing less energy (heat) to escape back to space.

This energy equation warms our planet and allows us to live, much in the same way glass traps re-radiated infrared radiation (heat) inside a greenhouse and allows plants to live inside of it in the winter; or why your car gets so damn hot when it's sitting in the sun with the windows closed. Shorter wave radiation (visible, UV) can pass thru the glass and warm interior surfaces... longer wave radiation (infrared, aka heat) radiates off the warmed surfaces and cannot pass back through the glass... thus warming the interior of the greenhouse or car two-fold, to the point where it is much warmer than the exterior. Think of the greenhouse or car interior as the Earth's surface and the glass as the Earth's atmosphere.

We know that the left side of an equation must equal the right side of the equation.
Increasing a value on the left results in a corresponding increase on the right. An input into a system results in an increase in output.

Highly simplified for purpose of demonstration... there are definitely other factors at play which also influence atmosphere temp. Let's just use CO2 and H2O vapor for example as two contributing GHGs (you could put any of them for x and y and add many many more variable, the output z would still have to reflect the inputs):

x+y = z

x = tons of atmospheric CO2
y = tons of atmospheric H2O vapor
z = atmospheric temperature

Increase x and/or y... you increase z.


We know that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have been rising as global population has rapidly increased and resulting human emissions of greenhouse gases have rapidly increased.

We have increased x, we have increased y... therefore we have increased z.

We have added CO2, H20 vapor, CH4, NO2, etc. to the atmospheric system therefore we have increased the atmospheric temperature.

Wow I didn't realize an entire group of science disciplines can be summed up as 8th grade earth science.

Thank you for clearing that up

pj3000 Sep 23, 2019 5:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8695676)
Wow I didn't realize an entire group of science disciplines can be summed up as 8th grade earth science.

Thank you for clearing that up

Never claimed anything was summed up.

But the above is basic 8th grade Earth science. You can choose to understand/learn/question or not. That's up to you.

lio45 Sep 23, 2019 5:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8695635)
The fact remains that the Earth has gone through massive changes to the climate in a relatively short period of geological time. The Earth will continue to experience changes in the climate. This is not new.

The one thing on which you and I disagree is that this "relatively short" of yours is only going to remain true for a limited amount of time now; those same changes will sooner or later be considered incredibly slow in comparison to the ones that will be following the recent, utterly meteoric rise in greenhouse gas levels.

lio45 Sep 23, 2019 5:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8695676)
Wow I didn't realize an entire group of science disciplines can be summed up as 8th grade earth science.

Thank you for clearing that up

There are lots of advanced things that can be soundly summed up to 8th graders (in a simplified manner, of course, but which still conserves the basic science and is still perfectly accurate).


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.