Universal Basic Income

Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by ryoung57, Feb 13, 2019.

  1. Mongo

    Mongo Administrator

    Okay lets get it clarified first - man made climate change or just climate change? Because anyone denying climate change is a maroon of the highest order. The only issue I ever have is people insisting they know man is changing it so quickly the world will end in 12 years or the like :D As for man made in some quantity, of course we have some effect, same as any other living/breathing being on the planet does. Not sure it's enough to offset the natural cycles of mother nature on the whole or if we just blend in to the background noise.
    sheepofblue likes this.
  2. sheepofblue

    sheepofblue Well-Known Member

    I have looked at the data and when you cook one set that disagrees with another (satellites) consistently it is suspect. When you model is 3 sigma out it is trash. Check into historical predictions and how everyone of them is incorrect. I have used climate models and to be honest most were dodgy and we were told to use them in ways even the author explicitly said was invalid.
  3. Motofun352

    Motofun352 Well-Known Member

    Do a little math...My local coal plant burns 100 car loads of coal a day at 100 tons per. Say there's 500 plants like that That's 500X100X365X2000 lbs/ton or 3.65e10 lbs per year. Say coal is all carbon and CO2 weighs 3 times that of pure carbon so that's 1.1e11 lbs of CO2...sounds like a lot, right? Now we need to know the other side of the issue.
    CO2 is about .04% or .0004 or the earth's atmosphere. The earth is 4000 miles in diameter so the surface area is 4x Pi x r-squared or 4X3.14X1.6e7 square miles. converting to square inches that's 8.4e17 sq inches. At 14.7 lbs per sq inch that's 1.23 e18 lbs of air. Therefor the current atmospheric content of CO2 is (Times .0004) 5e14 lbs of CO2. Based on my calcs coal fired power plants are putting 1.1e11 / 5e14 or .02% of the existing CO2 per year into the the atmosphere. Over 50 years at that rate coal fired power plants would raise the CO2 level to .000404. Of course I'm discounting how plants remove CO2, cars add CO2 as well as volcanoes and cow farts. Color me sceptical.
    PS, I've been drinking so a math check may be in order....:crackup:
    PPS, perhaps this should be in the lunatics thread....
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2019
  4. SGVRider

    SGVRider Well-Known Member

    I agree that the models are suspect. When you talk about models though, you’re talking about modeling the exact effects of climate change. I don’t think models being off by a few decades necessarily invalidates them either.
    What about the basic truth of it?

    I’ve looked at the data and the studies and it does seem that there isn’t another plausible explanation for the current warming trend besides human activity. There’s also a lot of data besides the warming trend to back it up, such as ocean acidification. It doesn’t help that some people are politically motivated to come up with predetermined conclusions. Other people are politically motivated to discount conclusions even if they’re scientifically viable.

    When people start talking about we’ll all be dead in 10 years and we need to stop driving cars next week it’s ridiculous. However, the basic fact that we’re warming the climate appears to be true.
    Yes, our civilization and species are small and pathetic. The anecdotes used to explain how small we are don’t apply though, because we’re talking about a feedback loop.

    What we do about is another matter. I think if we make a consistent and concerted effort to move to low impact resources we’ll be fine. That is already underway due to cost efficiencies available with new energy technology. Policy wise we should remove or ameliorate regulatory hurdles that prevent adoption of low impact energy technology.

    The civilization wide threat comes from us destroying ourselves through climate change induced societal pressure, not people drowning directly.
  5. R Acree

    R Acree WTF

    Unless the effort is global, it won't make much difference.
    speeddaddy likes this.
  6. SGVRider

    SGVRider Well-Known Member

    A minuscule increase in carbon above the system’s ability to absorb it combined with time will create a large excess of carbon.

    A good example from a biological process would be lactate threshold. Exercise at 1% above your lactate threshold and your mean time to failure will be geometrically shorter than if you exercised 1% below. There are probably some good studies on it out there. Many other processes exhibit similar behavior.

    You can build a simple domain agnostic model in Excel to demonstrate it, just establish a feed rate, work rate, and calculate excess units in process per each period. If you want to demonstrate a feedback loop, you can reduce the work rate based on excess product above a certain threshold.
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2019
  7. SGVRider

    SGVRider Well-Known Member

    Which is why it’s important that change come as a result of economics, not feels. If a new technology has economic benefit it will spread rapidly. If it doesn’t, it’ll only receive lip service.
  8. Motofun352

    Motofun352 Well-Known Member

    So you're supposing the earth's CO2 response rate is so finely tuned that a change of 3 or 4 negative orders of magnitude to the CO2 level is important or even detectable (I'm talking about the man made additive impact). I suspect that if levels are indeed increasing that it is due to other affects like deforestation or plankton growth. If my guess is correct (who knows?) then attacking carbon fuels as a solution is a fools errand.
  9. sheepofblue

    sheepofblue Well-Known Member

    The models being off in time is not a 3 sigma diversion, that is an out of control model.

    As to the basic truth, I can give you all kinds of times and events. For instance during Roman times they were raising grapes in England and Hannibal crossed the Alps on elephants. Both require a large change in temperature. Then there is the little ice age created by ???

    The biggest variant is solar output. As to green house gases water vapor is magnitudes more an impact than CO2. Oh and the 'current warming' trend ended a bit ago if you use satellite data rather than the 'adjusted' ground data. Panic sells and steals freedom, the green madness folks were originally from the Marxist organizations with the intent you would expect. Even now the freaks fly in on private jets to tell YOU to live in a cave. Also the US exited the climate scam under Trump but you might check to see who's numbers are better ours or those still making promises (while enslaving their population)

    I will end my rant with
    Pride & Joy and gixxerreese like this.
  10. auminer

    auminer Renaissance Redneck

    I did that same math awhile back & came up with similar. It really intrigued me trying to adjust for land masses, mountains, etc... though I suppose they are almost negligible as far as atmosphere displacement.
  11. In Your Corner

    In Your Corner Dungeonesque Crab

Share This Page