• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rush vs...uh, Stephen Hawking?

And, btw, as all the deniers buy what is being sold to them by their favorite RW politicians, the reality is our government knows the truth. They are just banking on the ignorance of their followers to keep them in office. But, preparations are certainly being made where it matters--the military.

This is one reason that, as nearly every climate scientist I spoke to pointed out, the U.S. military is obsessed with climate change: The drowning of all American Navy bases by sea-level rise is trouble enough, but being the world’s policeman is quite a bit harder when the crime rate doubles. Of course, it’s not just Syria where climate has contributed to conflict. Some speculate that the elevated level of strife across the Middle East over the past generation reflects the pressures of global warming — a hypothesis all the more cruel considering that warming began accelerating when the industrialized world extracted and then burned the region’s oil.
Click to expand...
 
So, what's the plan? Simple.

Play the fools for the fools they are, and then when SHTF, the rich will be safe behind walls with enough resources to stay fat and happy. Meanwhile the fools who supported them...well, they will be up the creek with everyone else.
 
calamity said:
You're missing the long-view, Longview.

Everyone on earth, and I mean everyone, is striving for things which burn carbon. And, now, several billion more people actually have a shot at owning things like cars, refrigerators, washing machines and dryers, heating systems, air conditioners, stoves, televisions, computers, modern clothes, etc, etc and ****ing etc. Carbon emissions are only going to go up...at least until it all crashes and we have no choice but suffer as we watch it fall.
Click to expand...
The "longview" is that we already possess the capability to allow the entire population of the world to live a first world lifestyle.
We can do so with a sustainable path forward, and doing so will deal with carbon emissions as a side effect.
The key is, and always has been energy storage.
There will be gaps that will need to be filled by nuclear power in the near term, but solar power,
can be used to both provide electricity, and fuel our vehicles.
A solar net zero home, will produce large surpluses both in the spring and fall months.
Turning those surpluses into carbon neutral transport fuels, will eliminate those emissions from ever occurring.
As we advance, solar could displace up to 68% of current emissions.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
knocking out transportation, electricity, and some of residential.
Improvements in energy efficient technologies will cause the curves towards net zero homes to converge quicker.
For the US the last piece we need is for the federal government to unify the home solar grid attach rules,
to allow both homeowner and electrical utilities to benefit from home solar power.
(Current net metering laws, are untenable, and can cause great harm to the economy and the poor.)
In 3rd world countries, we help them develop technology that eliminates steps the first world had to walk through.
We have a lot of luxuries, but the basics will still improve life greatly.
potable running hot and cold Water, would eliminate many diseases.
Refrigeration, allows food use to be separated from the harvest period.
Efficient climate control, ect.
The surpluse energy could create fuel for tractors, allowing vast improvements in agriculture, and market transport.
The future of the world can be bright, we just need to be cautions of preordained solutions!
 
longview said:
The "longview" is that we already possess the capability to allow the entire population of the world to live a first world lifestyle.
We can do so with a sustainable path forward, and doing so will deal with carbon emissions as a side effect.
The key is, and always has been energy storage.
There will be gaps that will need to be filled by nuclear power in the near term, but solar power,
can be used to both provide electricity, and fuel our vehicles.
A solar net zero home, will produce large surpluses both in the spring and fall months.
Turning those surpluses into carbon neutral transport fuels, will eliminate those emissions from ever occurring.
As we advance, solar could displace up to 68% of current emissions.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
knocking out transportation, electricity, and some of residential.
Improvements in energy efficient technologies will cause the curves towards net zero homes to converge quicker.
For the US the last piece we need is for the federal government to unify the home solar grid attach rules,
to allow both homeowner and electrical utilities to benefit from home solar power.
(Current net metering laws, are untenable, and can cause great harm to the economy and the poor.)
In 3rd world countries, we help them develop technology that eliminates steps the first world had to walk through.
We have a lot of luxuries, but the basics will still improve life greatly.
potable running hot and cold Water, would eliminate many diseases.
Refrigeration, allows food use to be separated from the harvest period.
Efficient climate control, ect.
The surpluse energy could create fuel for tractors, allowing vast improvements in agriculture, and market transport.
The future of the world can be bright, we just need to be cautions of preordained solutions!
Click to expand...

yeah, the "panacea" of nuclear power. :roll:

It stands to reason that at some point the Ukrainian government would like to be able to use that land again, but the scientists have calculated that what they call cesium's "ecological half-life" – the time for half the cesium to disappear from the local environment – is between 180 and 320 years. Dec 15, 2009

https://www.wired.com/2009/12/chernobyl-soil/
Click to expand...
 
calamity said:
yeah, the "panacea" of nuclear power. :roll:
Click to expand...
No, the Nuclear may only be necessary to fill the gap as solar is filled out.
There will still be a need for base load power, but hydrogen powered fuel cell storage units is looking better all the time.
Pardon Our Interruption
 
longview said:
No, the Nuclear may only be necessary to fill the gap as solar is filled out.
There will still be a need for base load power, but hydrogen powered fuel cell storage units is looking better all the time.
Pardon Our Interruption
Click to expand...

I understood what you wrote. I was only pointing to the disaster which has been nuclear power to make a point: what we think is a fix is often worse than the problem we are trying to solve.

Can we engineer? Hell yes we can.
by and large, the scientists have an enormous confidence in the ingenuity of humans — a confidence perhaps bolstered by their appreciation for climate change, which is, after all, a human invention, too. They point to the Apollo project, the hole in the ozone we patched in the 1980s, the passing of the fear of mutually assured destruction. Now we’ve found a way to engineer our own doomsday, and surely we will find a way to engineer our way out of it, one way or another.
Click to expand...

Do I buy that argument? I have no reason to put stock in it. So, no.

BTW, the great dying has already begun. In fact, it's accelerating as we argue over whether or not it is happening. Ironic, in a way.
 
calamity said:
And millions side with Rush. We have truly lost our minds.


I bet the irony in that last statement escapes him...and those millions I mentioned above.
Click to expand...




Not sure you know what Irony is. but Hawking for all his brilliance said something very gore like stupid.


"We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump’s action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees, and raining sulphuric acid.”


When and do you believe this?
 
calamity said:
And millions side with Rush. We have truly lost our minds.


I bet the irony in that last statement escapes him...and those millions I mentioned above.
Click to expand...

because rush is right? Hawkings statements are nothing more than hyperbole. there is nothing that shows we are in a runaway greenhouse event like venus.
the fact is you would be dead before we even got to that point.

venus has an atmospheric composition that is 98% co2. ours? <1%. it is like at .048%.
 
Mithrae said:
Hawkings' claim was false, incredibly exaggerated alarmism, plain and simple. The absolute upper limit of even remotely plausible scientific projections - 8.5W/m^2 of added forcing, more than quadrupling the preindustrial CO2 concentrations - still fall well below 20 degrees Celsius of temperature increase (IPCC AR5 WG1 Figure 12.5, below).

Even with the generous assumption that Hawking was thinking in Fahrenheit, his "250 degrees" is 121 Celsius. It was an utterly ridiculous and irresponsible claim, and he doesn't need to be a climate scientist to know that. At best, one might guess that he was hoping to "provoke discussion" and hadn't thought very carefully about his hyperbole, but given Hawkings' recent habit of promoting doomsday scenarios of all kinds, it looks more like a dishonest publicity stunt whose only real-world effect is besmirching the integrity of climate science. What else could you call it when Rush Limbaugh is the more reasonable of the two?

Fig12-05.jpg
Click to expand...

it is the same exaggeration that al gore presented yet al gore was wrong as well as and more than 10 years later we are still here and not dead.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I think instead of pulling out of it, president Trump should have sent level headed scientists who wanted to find the truth. Challenge the opinion of the indoctrinated politicians at the summit.
Click to expand...



They would be lucky to escape with their heads. Fanatics do not appreciate their religions questioned.
 
calamity said:
And millions side with Rush. We have truly lost our minds.


I bet the irony in that last statement escapes him...and those millions I mentioned above.
Click to expand...

Hawkings claims are so ridiculous and idiotic, what choice does anyone have but to side with Rush ?

Thats 250 degrees centigrade he's predicting, not fahrenhiet.

Hawking must believe that the average individual has the IQ of a toaster. Why else would he make such a ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim like that ?
 
ludin said:
because rush is right? Hawkings statements are nothing more than hyperbole. there is nothing that shows we are in a runaway greenhouse event like venus.
the fact is you would be dead before we even got to that point.

venus has an atmospheric composition that is 98% co2. ours? <1%. it is like at .048%.
Click to expand...
Obviously that's where Venus is today. But, do you know what it was before? Of course, you don't. No one does. But, there is a theory.

A runaway greenhouse effect involving carbon dioxide and water vapor may have occurred on Venus.[9] In this scenario, early Venus may have had a global ocean. As the brightness of the early Sun increased, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increased, increasing the temperature and consequently increasing the evaporation of the ocean, leading eventually to the situation in which the oceans boiled, and all of the water vapor entered the atmosphere. On Venus today there is little water vapor in the atmosphere. If water vapor did contribute to the warmth of Venus at one time, this water is thought to have escaped to space. Some evidence for this scenario comes from the extremely high deuterium to hydrogen ratio in Venus' atmosphere, roughly 150 times that of Earth, since light hydrogen would escape from the atmosphere more readily than its heavier isotope, deuterium.[10][11] Venus is sufficiently strongly heated by the Sun that water vapor can rise much higher in the atmosphere and be split into hydrogen and oxygen by ultraviolet light. The hydrogen can then escape from the atmosphere and the oxygen recombines. Carbon dioxide, the dominant greenhouse gas in the current Venusian atmosphere, owes its larger concentration to the weakness of carbon recycling as compared to Earth, where the carbon dioxide emitted from volcanoes is efficiently subducted into the Earth by plate tectonics on geologic time scales.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect#Venus
Click to expand...

And, when it comes to who better understands this stuff, I certainly put more stock in Hawking than that huckster,el Rushbo.
 
Fenton said:
Hawkings claims are so ridiculous and idiotic, what choice does anyone have but to side with Rush ?

Thats 250 degrees centigrade he's predicting, not fahrenhiet.

Hawking must believe that the average individual has the IQ of a toaster. Why else would he make such a ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim like that ?
Click to expand...

lol...Rush whining about someone else using hyperbole is certainly a breath of comedy on a Monday.

"Hawking is taking some rhetorical license here," Michael Mann, a climate scientist at the Pennsylvania State University, told Live Science in an email. "Earth is further away from the sun than Venus and likely cannot experience a runaway greenhouse effect in the same sense as Venus — i.e. a literal boiling away of the oceans. However Hawking's larger point — that we could render the planet largely uninhabitable for human civilization if we do not act to avert dangerous climate change — is certainly valid."

https://www.livescience.com/59693-could-earth-turn-into-venus.html
Click to expand...
 
Captain Adverse said:
Point of Information.

Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist. A brilliant man in his field of expertise. He is well-respected for both his intelligence, and strength of character in the face of terrible adversity.

Yet he has no special knowledge of climatology and has not published any research papers on the subject. In short, he is offering his personal opinion as any individual is entitled to.
Click to expand...

Good point.

Captain Adverse said:
Response to OP:

...Still, citing Mr. Hawking reflects the fallacy of appeal to authority...and it is a false authority since my Hawking's opinion is based on research other than his own. Meaning it has no more validity to this argument than yours, mine, or Mr. Limbaugh's.

People in disagreement have not "lost their minds," they simply choose not to accept his word as fiat.
Click to expand...

I agree. However brilliant he may be in his own field, Hawking's pronouncements don't hold more water here than other lay people's.
 
ludin said:
it is the same exaggeration that al gore presented yet al gore was wrong as well as and more than 10 years later we are still here and not dead.
Click to expand...

I think I saw Gore's movie once when it came out and once a couple of years ago - pretty sure there's nothing even remotely comparable to Hawking's claim in it. Of course I scarcely recall it :lol: He does the whole "this is what our shores would look like with a 20ft sea level rise" bit, doesn't he? Pretty sure that's the closest it comes to alarmism, and I do have a problem with that kind of thing, but there's a world of difference in that those sea levels have occurred in the past and while unlikely could occur again (many centuries from now). Illustrative use of a far-fetched scenario is hardly comparable to Hawking's assertion of something which is literally impossible.
 
calamity said:
I understood what you wrote. I was only pointing to the disaster which has been nuclear power to make a point: what we think is a fix is often worse than the problem we are trying to solve.

Can we engineer? Hell yes we can.


Do I buy that argument? I have no reason to put stock in it. So, no.

BTW, the great dying has already begun. In fact, it's accelerating as we argue over whether or not it is happening. Ironic, in a way.
Click to expand...

You are free to be a pessimistic as you like!
I have worked on the bleeding edge of R&D for many years, and think
humans will always rise to whatever challenge confronts them.
One of the main reasons I am skeptical of AGW, is they have not identified the correct problem.
We do not have a CO2 problem, we have an energy problem.
 
calamity said:
lol...Rush whining about someone else using hyperbole is certainly a breath of comedy on a Monday.
Click to expand...

Lol !!
Sorry, but a 250 degree centigrade increase and sulfuric acid for rain is far beyond hyperbole.

Its fodder for idiots and for everyone else its insulting garbage.
 
calamity said:
Obviously that's where Venus is today. But, do you know what it was before? Of course, you don't. No one does. But, there is a theory.

And, when it comes to who better understands this stuff, I certainly put more stock in Hawking than that huckster,el Rushbo.
Click to expand...

you and other people discount how close it is to the sun as well that was the main driver.
you have to have massive amounts of evaporation occurring we are not seeing that.
in fact if anything the ocean is not depleting.

I see you can't address the fact that hawking is wrong.
 
ludin said:
you and other people discount how close it is to the sun as well that was the main driver.
you have to have massive amounts of evaporation occurring we are not seeing that.
in fact if anything the ocean is not depleting.

I see you can't address the fact that hawking is wrong.
Click to expand...

I have stated in numerous posts that he was using hyperbole, kind of like, you know, Rush does all the time.
 
Mithrae said:
I think I saw Gore's movie once when it came out and once a couple of years ago - pretty sure there's nothing even remotely comparable to Hawking's claim in it. Of course I scarcely recall it :lol: He does the whole "this is what our shores would look like with a 20ft sea level rise" bit, doesn't he? Pretty sure that's the closest it comes to alarmism, and I do have a problem with that kind of thing, but there's a world of difference in that those sea levels have occurred in the past and while unlikely could occur again (many centuries from now). Illustrative use of a far-fetched scenario is hardly comparable to Hawking's assertion of something which is literally impossible.
Click to expand...

from sea flooding's to un-breathable air to run away greenhouse effects. it was stupidity at it's finest.
10 years later here we all are.
 
Fenton said:
Lol !!
Sorry, but a 250 degree centigrade increase and sulfuric acid for rain is far beyond hyperbole.

Its fodder for idiots and for everyone else its insulting garbage.
Click to expand...

How is acid rain beyond hyperbole?

Is Acid Rain a Thing of the Past? | Science | AAAS

To combat the problem, the U.S. Congress imposed strict emission regulations on industry in 1970 through the Clean Air Act, which was strengthened in 1990. By 2003, sulfur dioxide raining down on the northeastern United States had decreased by as much as 40%. But were soils improving, too?
Click to expand...

Seems to me that is quite germane to Trump's deregulation efforts. It's the one thing SH said that was realistic, in the short run.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Point of Information.

Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist. A brilliant man in his field of expertise. He is well-respected for both his intelligence, and strength of character in the face of terrible adversity.

Yet he has no special knowledge of climatology and has not published any research papers on the subject. In short, he is offering his personal opinion as any individual is entitled to.

Response to OP:

Now I also personally believe that over-population of Earth by the human species is having a negative effect not only on climate, but also all sorts of other aspects of the environment.

Still, citing Mr. Hawking reflects the fallacy of appeal to authority...and it is a false authority since my Hawking's opinion is based on research other than his own. Meaning it has no more validity to this argument than yours, mine, or Mr. Limbaugh's.

People in disagreement have not "lost their minds," they simply choose not to accept his word as fiat.
Click to expand...

But, considering that Hawking is a brilliant scientist he is in a much better position that someone like Limbaugh to weigh the merits of scientific evidence presented and draw a reasonable conclusion.
 
Gaius46 said:
But, considering that Hawking is a brilliant scientist he is in a much better position that someone like Limbaugh to weigh the merits of scientific evidence presented and draw a reasonable conclusion.
Click to expand...
Looking at Hawking's comments it is easy to see the hyperbole.
“We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible,” he said yesterday (July 2) in an interview with BBC News. “Trump’s action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid.”
Click to expand...
The extreme end of the IPCC predictions have an ECS of 4.5 C for a doubling of the CO2 level.
The US's participation or lack of it in the Paris Accord, will have almost zero effect on global CO2 levels,
as US CO2 emissions are already falling at a rate that would likely meet the accord requirements.
 
longview said:
Looking at Hawking's comments it is easy to see the hyperbole.

The extreme end of the IPCC predictions have an ECS of 4.5 C for a doubling of the CO2 level.
The US's participation or lack of it in the Paris Accord, will have almost zero effect on global CO2 levels,
as US CO2 emissions are already falling at a rate that would likely meet the accord requirements.
Click to expand...

4C is the pipe dream now, 2 C is long gone. The extreme ends of the predictions are 8 C, and 12 C is not out of the question.

From the NY Mag Article cited above:
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issues serial reports, often called the “gold standard” of climate research; the most recent one projects us to hit four degrees of warming by the beginning of the next century, should we stay the present course. But that’s just a median projection. The upper end of the probability curve runs as high as eight degrees — and the authors still haven’t figured out how to deal with that permafrost melt. The IPCC reports also don’t fully account for the albedo effect (less ice means less reflected and more absorbed sunlight, hence more warming); more cloud cover (which traps heat); or the dieback of forests and other flora (which extract carbon from the atmosphere).
Click to expand...
 
calamity said:
4C is the pipe dream now, 2 C is long gone. The extreme ends of the predictions are 8 C, and 12 C is not out of the question.

From the NY Mag Article cited above:
Click to expand...

Actually the results based on the empirical data show an ECS of about 2 C.
With other papers coming in as low as .8 C, but many showing an ECS of about 1.8 C.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
When we look at the idea of how AGW is supposed to work, we see where the high estimates fall apart.
The warming from CO2 forcing, is supposed to be amplified by various climate feedbacks to produce additional warming,
once the long latency equilibrium period has occurred.
Thankfully we have a period of warming in the record (1910 to 1940) where temperatures rose by .2 C and never went back down.
We can use this input, to see how much unaccounted for warming exists.
If we assume the high end of the IPCC range of 4.5 C, the climate amplifier would have to apply a gain factor
of 4.09 to the input warming of 1.1C to arrive at 4.5C.
Since the climate system cannot discriminate the source of the warming, the 1910 to 1940 warming is an input as well.
So .2 C times the gain factor of 4.09 equals .818 C.
This sounds like the 4 C range is plausible, until you subtract out the physics based forcing by CO2 since 1940.
This would be defined by the equation of 1.58 X ln(409/311)= .432 C.
The most gain factor that the observable evidence supports is one that causes .2 C to gain to .386, or about 1.93.
This would be an ECS of about 2.1 C.
But we still have not taken into account the up to .3 C increase from the solar input.
As you can see the climate does appear to have an amplification factor, it just happens to be at the low end of the IPCC range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom