Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10459
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby A_Gupta » 12 Aug 2018 07:24

RoyG wrote:There is a bit of hysteria in all this. With more efficient technology, fusion, thorium battery, renewables, reforestation/afforestation, etc. humanity will get through this CO2 problem.

The system builds up certain momentum, and that is the problem. We have given the climate system push and even if we stop pushing, the time scale for it to come to equilibrium is of the order of hundreds of years.

Remember the deurbanization of Sarawati-Sindhu? That wasn’t man-made climate change, but that was climate change in action. Of course we don’t remember Saraswati-Sindhu, only modern archaeology brought it to light. That is likely the fate of current civilization.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 3277
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby rsingh » 12 Aug 2018 21:57

SaiK wrote:There was one argument on npr I was listening while on the road, this guy rejects the idea that more forests for reduced CO2. he says, the data shows otherwise. I am not in agreement here.

Saar, it has been proven in lab that higher CO2= Higher yields of hydrocarbons ( let's say wood). But there then there is an equilibrium . Availability of water, sunlight , conc of some minerals becomes limiting factors. Primitive non-flowering trees that gave us most of our coal-reserve, flourished during high level of CO2. IIRC this fact was confirmed (conc of CO)by Ice-core samples taken from Antartica.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 9198
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby UlanBatori » 13 Aug 2018 02:07

What's wrong with just reflecting enough sunlight out until the atmosphere gets cooler? (i.e., reduce retained heat)

Posts: 1664
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 13 Aug 2018 06:31

UlanBatori wrote:What's wrong with just reflecting enough sunlight out until the atmosphere gets cooler? (i.e., reduce retained heat)

What's wrong indeed? How about carbon sequestering under the ocean - anything wrong with that?

What's wrong is this whole notion that we know the "ideal" temperature at which to maintain this planet, and that we need to implement some kind of global thermostat (at any cost - monetary or otherwise) to achieve and keep that "ideal" constant temperature.

I'm all for reducing pollution, curbing unnecessary consumption, not dumping artificial molecules (plastics) into the oceans, more efficient energy technologies, and all that. What scares me is these drastic ideas like artificially trapping billions of tons of carbon under the ocean, meddling with the solar influx, or climate engineering in general.

As a thought experiment - if it were somehow proven tomorrow that this temperature rise is not due to humans, but due to the sun's variable energy output itself. Would we then feel compelled to curb the temperature rise? Just imagine that all the effects of temperature rise that are happening, or that we think will happen, will all happen - species going extinct (and other hitherto unknown species evolving), glaciers melting, sea levels rising, coral reefs bleaching, more hurricanes or earthquakes, land going underwater, water wars, food wars, sex-deprivation wars, whole countries or continents turning into desert and getting depopulated - but all of this is because of temperature rise (10 deg. C by the end of the century), which, however, is proven to be because of increased solar output. Should we then meddle and curb it? Or is this natural rise okay, and should we only stop any rise due to human activity? It's not just a philosophical question, it has extremely practical implications for our role (or perceived role) on this planet.

I don't know the answer to the above question BTW.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 9198
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby UlanBatori » 13 Aug 2018 07:16

Thanks. Open question. So far I/we have not seen anything wrong, and are sending it like Asvamedha Yaga to see who shoots at it and whether they survive our counter-arguments. It is not like carbon-sequestering: that has the bad side that Abdul bin Kabul can one day make it all leak out.

Re: non-anthropogenic, my friends in Ulan Bator Monastery believe that the Solar System is right now going through a slightly denser part of the interstellar clouds. The Bow Shock ahead of the Solar System heats up this gas, so the entire System has a bit higher temperature.

One din the Solar System will come out of this cloud into clearer Space. Shock intensity goes way down. Temperature goes down. Ice Age is on us in a flash. Himalayas reach 40,000 feet in height, ocean goes down and you can drive from Florida to Havana. Govt pays people to burn more gasoline and emit more fumes. Smoking is made mandatory.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 4467
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Neshant » 13 Aug 2018 09:30

The amount of C02 increase is supposedly less than a fraction of 1%.
There are discreprencies in the way levels of C02 are measured putting even that claim into question.
That plus plants in a greenhouse with a higher C02 concentration grow larger and faster.

Changes in atmospheric carbon have not been shown to be linked to human activities to begin with.
Its risen massively in the past well before humans arrived - sometimes very rapidly within a span of a decade.
That issue has not been resolved let alone whether slightly more C02 would be positive or negative and for whom.
After all, human civilization itself only arose after the Earth began warming up 10,000 years ago.

Its all mute point because bankers need to skim cream off carbon credit trading and are eagerly pushing for carbon taxes.
Any proper studies or conclusions that don't support skimming cream are deemed irrelevant.

Return to “Technology & Economic Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Vamsi31 and 10 guests