Searching for someone who knows about global warming

AcrobatEpee

Member
Hey ! I’m searching for someone who knows a bunch about global warming, why is it happening, how can we reduce it, what are the best solutions etc.

I am currently in a project to collect funds to be able to fight against it. Please reach out by discord only if you’re really interested in long talks and explainings. Thanks

AcrobatEpee#3854
 

Andy

Member
what are the best solutions etc.
Well, people not supporting (even ironically) policy makers who claim old fashion hair spray is "great", and what one person does in the bathroom can't cause harm because "walls", would be a nice start.
 

Lonewolff

Member
Hey ! I’m searching for someone who knows a bunch about global warming, why is it happening, how can we reduce it, what are the best solutions etc.
Well it's an historical fact that it is all cyclical. So I wouldn't worry too much about it. Ice ages come and go. That is a fact.

We are, in fact, in the middle of ane 'ice age' right now.

https://www.thespectrum.com/story/opinion/mesquite/2017/06/23/global-warming-were-middle-ice-age/412206001/

In a couple of thousand years we will be up in arms trying to stop 'global cooling'.
 

Lonewolff

Member
Climate scientists seem to agree it's cause by human activity:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
What about the other several hundred 'global warming' periods since the creation of the planet? Who caused those?

Sure, we are no doubt contributing to global warming as a species. But so does every other species on the planet.

Cows are a major contributor as well. Maybe we should tell cows to ease up and think about their future too.

https://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2


Its cyclic.
  • Things will heat up, heaps of animals (and humans) will die.
  • Things will cool down, we will have an ice age, heaps of animals (and humans) will die.
  • Rinse and repeat.
Nature always balances itself.


I'm more concerned with population growth. That will do us in well before global warming becomes an issue.

The total number of humans that have ever lived has been estimated at 110 billion.
Approximately 6% of all these people are alive today (~7.4 billion).
Humans have existed for 200,000 years. Yet, 6% of all humans who have ever lived are alive today and that number increasing rapidly.

6 percent! :eek:
 
Last edited:

Nocturne

Friendly Tyrant
Forum Staff
Admin
If it is a proven fact that we have had a heap of 'heat ages' and 'ice ages' in the past, wouldn't that make it logical that it will in-fact continue to happen?
Noone debates this fact. But it has nothing to do with the question at hand. Global Warming is most certainly caused by human intervention, and just because we've had different "ages" in the past, does not negate that the current one is caused by humans. It's a false argument, and the evidence for this current change in climate being provoked by humans is damning.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/climate-change/
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/change/causes_en

This video from National Geographic is a good primer on the subject:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-real/


We are, in fact, in the middle of ane 'ice age' right now.
PS: That link is a joke. No sources cited and it is simply an opinion piece based on erroneous extrapolation of actual data... Yes, we are technically in an Ice Age that has lasted approx. 30 million years, but, again, this has NOTHING to do with Global Warming. I refer you to this article that explains the situation somewhat better than I can (and yes, with properly cited links and information): https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/glacier5.htm
 
Last edited:

Lonewolff

Member
Noone debates this fact. But it has nothing to do with the question at hand. Global Warming is most certainly caused by human intervention, and just because we've had different "ages" in the past, does not negate that the current one is caused by humans. It's a false argument, and the evidence for this current change in climate being provoked by humans is damning.
No argument there at all.

Just saying that unless we kill off seven billion people or so, we won't be slowing it down any time soon.

As I said, it is also a proven fact that livestock are contributing to global warming also. So we need to kill off our food sources too.

All non plant life contributes to global warming. The planet cooks, non-plant life dies off, vegetation restores the balance, ice age comes, non-plant life starts thriving again. Rinse and repeat.

It is a cycle. Always has been. :)
 

Nocturne

Friendly Tyrant
Forum Staff
Admin
Just saying that unless we kill off seven billion people or so, we won't be slowing it down any time soon.
Again, that has nothing to do with the situation. Individuals don't cause Global Warming, POLICY and CONSUMERISM does. The earth can sustain a far bigger population than it currently has: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160311-how-many-people-can-our-planet-really-support

As I said, it is also a proven fact that livestock are contributing to global warming also. So we need to kill off our food sources too.
Indeed, and I don't debate that. However, only very few countries consume the large majority of the meat being produced, while the large majority of the world consumes very little meat. So, it only requires those few top countries to change their habits and this ceases to be a problem (I'm looking at you USA and Australia). Also note that advances in hydroponics, lab-grown meat and alternative protein sources (like insects, fungus, krill, etc...) mean that noone needs to die, just change their habits (again, we're back to consumerism and policy): https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/these-countries-eat-the-most-meat-03bdf469-f40a-41e3-ade7-fe4ddb2a709a/

All non plant life contributes to global warming. The planet cooks, non-plant life dies off, vegetation restores the balance, ice age comes, non-plant life starts thriving again. Rinse and repeat.
Oh dear... Yes, there appears to be a cycle here, but that's not quite the whole picture and (again!) has nothing to do with the evidence for human intervention creating the current global warming crisis. https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm
 

Lonewolff

Member
Individuals don't cause Global Warming, POLICY and CONSUMERISM does.
Hang on a sec. Who are the consumers again?


Oh dear... Yes, there appears to be a cycle here, but that's not quite the whole picture and (again!) has nothing to do with the evidence for human intervention creating the current global warming crisis. https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm
Again, never said that humans aren't contributing. We most certainly are, without a doubt.


Why the OP asked for Environmental Scientists in a GameMaker forum, I'll never understand. But, that's the Off Topic section for you.

Off Topic is largely an 'opinion forum'. We have had 'experts' scream until they are blue in the face that eating potatoes makes you immortal (right up until you die). Magic!

It is all opinion. No one here is qualified to argue otherwise.


Everyone dies eventually so clearly this beheaded corpse wrapped in plastic and thrown in a lake died of natural causes
Well, it is a natural cause technically. If you are beheaded, then yes you are dead. Naturally...
 
Last edited:

Lonewolff

Member
Which is precisely why I haven't given any opinion and have simply relied on the demostrable facts to reply to your opinions.

;)
That's right. The links I posted were my opinions, that I manufactured years ago, just waiting for this topic to appear. :cool:

Always the forward thinker I am. ;)

(And I have never disputed your facts. I am in agreeance. That's the funny thing.)


But yes, it is completely my opinion that the human race is screwed and we will take a lot of other species down with us.
 
Last edited:

Lukasmah

Member
when I saw your name here, I expected a beautiful wall of text addressing the various inaccuracies in this thread.
 

Andy

Member
Cows are a major contributor as well. Maybe we should tell cows to ease up and think about their future too.
Modern cows are domestic, and wouldn't exist as they do now without humans. How we raise cows is part of how humans impact the climate.
Thankfully, lots of farmers work with researchers develops methods that cut back the methane farming can produce.
Some farms use cow manure to generate power, some are experimenting with changing the diet of their livestock (adding things like seaweed), etc...

No argument there at all.
If I said "Dogs are pets, cats are pets, pets are mammals", linking me an article about pet birds wouldn't be an argument.
It also wouldn't be an argument for me to respond “You made no argument against what I said”.
Arguments are just arguments.
Even making a valid argument doesn't necessarily mean anything. Arguments can be valid, logical, and wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic)#cite_note-2

Hang on a sec. Who are the consumers again?
Going on a tangent here (well, most of this post is tangents I suppose :p), but this sentiment is extremely individualist.
It’s not wrong to look at things though an individualist lens, but only being able to see though the individualist lens is hindering. Humans are animals influenced by social group dynamics. If someone can only see lots of atomized individuals, they’ll miss the forest though the trees. Understanding how groups can impact the behavior of individuals is important. There are ways to change how individuals act, and what they consume. The marketing industry is built around this.

But yes, it is completely my opinion that the human race is screwed and we will take a lot of other species down with us.
What people do will determine that. We can choose the difficult path and actually care. :)
 
Last edited:

Roa

Member
Well, people not supporting (even ironically) policy makers who claim old fashion hair spray is "great", and what one person does in the bathroom can't cause harm because "walls", would be a nice start.
Yeah, something they solved 45 years ago...
 

Dog Slobber

Member
What about the other several hundred 'global warming' periods since the creation of the planet? Who caused those?
Past cycles of minor glacial / interglacial cycles and the major glacial / interglacial periods are not relevant in the context of global climate change conversations.

A typical minor cycle takes about 100,000 years, so lets say about 50,000 years from peak cold to peak high temperature. And recognize that the temperature variance in minor glacial / interglacial periods is small compared to major cycles. But 50,000 years is plenty of time for animals, plants, microbes, all life to adapt through evolution.

The problem with man made climate change is not necessarily that the temperature is changing. The real problem is the rate of change is so accelerated that life at all scales will not have time to adapt. This is especially problematic should the the temperature variance be at a scale similar with the major cycles, but occurring in hundreds of years instead of thousands of years for minors and millions of years for majors.

An analogy:
If one were traveling in an automobile at 100 K an hour and forced to stop in a 10th of a second the forces would kill them instantly and cause huge trauma to bones and organs.

Stating that people decelerate from 100 K to 0 all the time without issue, is simply not relevant and doesn't contribute anything to the conversation at all.

No one here is qualified to argue otherwise.
So you've unilaterally decided that biologists, meteorologists, geologists, geochemists, geophysicists, et al. or those who have some expertise without formal education or experience are prohibited using GameMaker and joining the forums. Didn't notice that clause in the EULA.
 
Last edited:

Andy

Member
I specified old fashioned hairspray.
The problem is being addressed because enough people understand it’s a problem. It’s possible for current regulations to be undone.
Every new generation needs to be taught why we regulate things (like hair spray can ingredients).
Not everyone will care, or be able, to learn technical details behind regulations. Lots of people (regardless if they should or not) defer to role models.
People in positions of authority claiming 45 years ago we did things better (among other horrible ideas) is a genuine problem.
Supporting, even ironically, people who use this rhetoric causes real world damage.
 

Roa

Member
I've pretty much given up on on the global warming debate, from either side manly because the answer is pretty obvious what needs done, and no one wants to do it.
1: Nuclear power
2: Deep sea turbines
3: buy local raised meat.

Pretty simple **** really.
 

Lonewolff

Member
So you've unilaterally decided that biologists, meteorologists, geologists, geochemists, geophysicists, et al. or those who have some expertise without formal education or experience are prohibited using GameMaker and joining the forums. Didn't notice that clause in the EULA.
Hands up anyone who is one of these listed. No one? Thanks.


*removed*

MOD EDIT: Watch your language and please don't insult other members.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lonewolff

Member
There you go :)

I'm still trying to figure out where @Dog Slobber read that I stated where certain demographics are prohibited from using GameMaker. I am insulted by his post. Can he have an edit too please? :)

I stated that Environmental Scientists probably wouldn't hang out in GM forums.

Why do all of these 'legal advice' threads keep getting shut down? Are lawyers prohibited from the forums also?
 

Lumenflower

Yellow Dog
Hands up anyone who is one of these listed. No one? Thanks.
None of the above so I'm not all that clear on the details of climate change itself, but as an engineer I have a fairly good grasp of many of the energy solutions that are being used to combat it. With that I can echo @Roa in saying that nuclear power is the best and most feasible (at least at this stage) route to clean energy. The biggest drive among many environmental groups has been into solar and wind; while these are great in certain applications, the current designs are poorly suited to providing the large-scale energy needed to move away from coal. They are plagued by very high manufacturing costs and produce comparatively little energy in return. This creates the effect where coal is stepping back in to cover for periods in which wind/solar does not provide enough energy to meet demand.

Nuclear has its flaws, of course. Nuclear plants are very expensive and time-consuming to build, and plants cannot be turned on-and-off on the fly to meet demand fluctuations throughout the day. The biggest reservation people have is of course the risk of catastrophe (Chernobyl, Fukushima etc.). While this is a real risk that deserves consideration, it is far less of an issue than many people would believe. Firstly, safety standards have massively improved since these disasters occurred, so newer reactor models are far less prone to faults and thus far less likely to fail. Secondly, the repercussions of these disasters have been massively overstated. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, it's hard to argue that oil and gas companies haven't hyped up the impact of these disasters in the interest of curbing support for nuclear power. There is negligible radiation exposure associated with living near a reactor, and even the two disasters mentioned resulted in far less impact on the population and environment than the public believe.
 

Roa

Member
None of the above so I'm not all that clear on the details of climate change itself, but as an engineer I have a fairly good grasp of many of the energy solutions that are being used to combat it. With that I can echo @Roa in saying that nuclear power is the best and most feasible (at least at this stage) route to clean energy. The biggest drive among many environmental groups has been into solar and wind; while these are great in certain applications, the current designs are poorly suited to providing the large-scale energy needed to move away from coal. They are plagued by very high manufacturing costs and produce comparatively little energy in return. This creates the effect where coal is stepping back in to cover for periods in which wind/solar does not provide enough energy to meet demand.

Nuclear has its flaws, of course. Nuclear plants are very expensive and time-consuming to build, and plants cannot be turned on-and-off on the fly to meet demand fluctuations throughout the day. The biggest reservation people have is of course the risk of catastrophe (Chernobyl, Fukushima etc.). While this is a real risk that deserves consideration, it is far less of an issue than many people would believe. Firstly, safety standards have massively improved since these disasters occurred, so newer reactor models are far less prone to faults and thus far less likely to fail. Secondly, the repercussions of these disasters have been massively overstated. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, it's hard to argue that oil and gas companies haven't hyped up the impact of these disasters in the interest of curbing support for nuclear power. There is negligible radiation exposure associated with living near a reactor, and even the two disasters mentioned resulted in far less impact on the population and environment than the public believe.
We don't live in the 50s anymore. Nuclear is honestly the safest. The risk to people is actually less than the dangers of setting up things like ocean turbines and windmills.
  • They are the best bang for buck, considering man hours, output, and infrastructure setup, upkeep, and longevity of sustainability.
  • Fuel is; for all intents and purposes infinite
  • We can reuse old nuclear waste as fuel as modern methods can actually further decay old fuels safely, killing 2 birds with one stone.
  • They are damn near impossible to melt down now because the types of heavy metals used and better containment.(you wont have radioactive materials vaporizing into the atmosphere).
  • the materials used and how they are used; are so slow to decay and decay more stably, that even if it did get out, it would have almost no measurable impact on the environment either by radiation or chemical toxicity.
There is literally zero reason to not go nuclear. Its cheaper, safer for workers, and so abundant, there is no reason energy couldn't become free world wide. Just the US alone could be exporting energy all over north/south america with a few million bucks. Just imagine that + electric cars and we would barely even have a carbon foot print.


If people were simply as enthusiastic about nuclear as they were ****ty expensive and massively inefficient solar panels, we wouldn't be in a discussion about emissions or energy at all.

I've been following nuclear fuels for a long time now and there seems to be 2 basic premises that keep it down constantly.

  1. people enjoy the culture and scare factor of it. You have so much negative media surrounding it, because of things like the old meltdowns and thats one of the primary things people are interested in. People remember the "tragedies", either from war or the meltdowns and it peaks people's curiosity over say, something like a documentary on the cool **** that can be done with it. The negative effects from a bygone infancy era are sensationalized and dramatized to death, so much so, that we have entire worlds developed out of it, like fallout, stalker, the highest stakes of pretty much every modern war game ever, and stupid shows like HBO's Chernobyl (which is soo much bull**** and filled with inaccuracies for drama), and constant talks of Russian, German and American development of weapon's grade use. People's perception and ignorance of it are very skewed because of these reasons.
  2. and second, because the energy was founded to be an effective weapon and developed during war time, almost all the spending and research, and public eye went in that direction despite constant pleas to get funding and research to use it as an energy source for consumers. Once the wars were over, it already had such a negative impact on the technology, nobody in consumer sectors really gave it much thought. Government basically went quiet, and private investors weren't biting the whole nuclear energy thing, so they got starved out of funding. The main reason meltdowns happened at all was because they were still working within limited research and neglected to take it further. Now its almost 70 years later, and people are still stuck with the stigmas of this under developed infinitle technology, that nobody can appreciate how far it has come.

    In reality, it should probably be one of our most precious developments in human history. Its literally power of God, as old as the expanding universe to tap into lol. Its literally everywhere around you, even in your backyard if people could be bothered to harness its properties.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dog Slobber

Member
There you go :)

I'm still trying to figure out where @Dog Slobber read that I stated where certain demographics are prohibited from using GameMaker. I am insulted by his post. Can he have an edit too please? :)

I stated that Environmental Scientists probably wouldn't hang out in GM forums.

Why do all of these 'legal advice' threads keep getting shut down? Are lawyers prohibited from the forums also?
I didn't say a certain demographics were prohibited from using GameMaker, I said "...are prohibited using GameMaker and joining the forums."

I would have thought that you would have understood that "and" means both statements have to be true.

And no you didn't say, "Environmental Scientists probably wouldn't hang out in GM forums.", you said, "No one here is qualified to argue otherwise."

Those two things aren't even remotely the same. If you are going to make claims that you can not know, and are incorrect, then you feeling insulted because you're called out on it; is on you.
 
Last edited:

Andy

Member
I don’t personally know much about nuclear energy, but everything I’ve read tends to agree with your general sentiment Roa. I would definitely support moving towards nuclear energy.
 

Roa

Member
It's funny, cause this technology is actually used everyday and has been for some time. American aircraft carriers are almost all powered by nuclear fuel rods. They can push all that weight at around 40mph around across the sea with just 2 turbines, anywhere in the world, pretty much indefinitely. Its why the US navy is so damn powerful, because their range is unlimited. These ships will never refuel in their entire existence. The fuel supply outlast the integrity and life of the ships that carry them. Hell, Their fuel supply will last longer than most people will live. lol.

We just need to get it to mainland.
 
Last edited:

Jabbers

Member
The problem with nuclear power plants is not that they are generally unsafe, but that when things go wrong the effects are potentially catastrophic. Some realistic examples that threaten the safety of nuclear power plants include flooding as a consequence from global warming (plants are often near rivers or coastal waters for cooling) as well as natural disasters such as earthquakes. In theory, one can build plants to try and withstand these threats, but we're yet to find a completely invulnerable solution and perhaps we never will. A famous modern example would be the failure of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in 2011, a casualty of a severe earthquake in Japan, a country known for it's intelligent approach to earthquake resistance in architectural engineering. A plant must be decommissioned so that it does not maim the environment, a process that is difficult, very expensive, and takes many years. For some, it's better to look to new energy sources then to play with the complex risks of nuclear.
 
@Jabbers The Fukushima plant was outdated, having been first commissioned in 1971 (meaning at the time of the accident, it was 40 years old and the technology for nuclear plants had moved FAR beyond it's design specs). It was granted permission to operate for another 10 years just a month before the disaster struck (despite numerous faults pointed out by the regulatory committee) in what seems to be a form of regulatory capture. This came about because there's public pressure not to build new nuclear reactors, which in turn forces the nuclear power companies to lobby the government in order to keep older power plants running, as the public pressure makes it much harder to build new plants.

The "intelligent" approach that the Japanese took towards earthquake safety involved:

1. Stress cracks in the backup diesel-powered generators at Reactor No. 1 at the Daiichi plant (the cracks made the engines vulnerable to corrosion from seawater and rainwater).
2. A general struggle to keep the reactor and spent fuel pool from overheating and emitting radioactive materials before the earthquake.
3. The company admitting that it had failed to inspect 33 pieces of equipment related to the cooling systems, including water pumps and diesel generators, at the power station’s six reactors.
4. Regulators saying that “maintenance management was inadequate” and that the “quality of inspection was insufficient.”
5. Small suppression chambers, which increased the risk that pressure would build up within the reactor, a fault eliminated in newer reactors.

Among many other things.

It's entirely possible to build a reactor that cannot go critical. Here's an example: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/01/24/can-we-make-a-nuclear-reactor-that-wont-melt-down/#1d89b8a35b7e

Another example would be thorium reactors, which still require R&D but are much safer than the old power plants as well, for example: "Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are designed to be meltdown proof. A plug at the bottom of the reactor melts in the event of a power failure or if temperatures exceed a set limit, draining the fuel into an underground tank for safe storage." Thorium also produces much less nuclear waste (I've seen up to two orders of magnitude less quoted) and the radioactivity of that waste drops down to safe levels within a century or so, compared to literally tens of thousands of years for other reactor waste.

The problem with nuclear is not about nuclear. It's about public perception of nuclear. Coal pollution kills hundreds of thousands worldwide annually (contributing to 4 of the 5 leading cause of death: heart disease, cancer, stroke and chronic respiratory diseases). Green energy, such as solar power and wind power are where we should be headed, but we likely aren't going to get to where we need to be with them in order to sustain a moderately similar lifestyle before climate change kills us all. The only real valid solution is nuclear energy, at the very least as a bridge between where we are now and where we want to be with green energy.
 
Top